Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Diagnostic Immunology’ Category

Inotuzumab Ozogamicin: Success in relapsed/refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

About Inotuzumab Ozogamicin

Inotuzumab ozogamicin is an investigational antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprised of a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting CD22,9 a cell surface antigen expressed on approximately 90 percent of B-cell malignancies,10 linked to a cytotoxic agent. When inotuzumab ozogamicin binds to the CD22 antigen on malignant B-cells, it is internalized into the cell, where the cytotoxic agent calicheamicin is released to destroy the cell.11

Inotuzumab ozogamicin originates from a collaboration between Pfizer and Celltech, now UCB. Pfizer has sole responsibility for all manufacturing, clinical development and commercialization activities for this molecule.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)

is an aggressive type of leukemia with high unmet need and a poor prognosis in adults.4The current standard treatment is intensive, long-term chemotherapy.5 In 2015, it is estimated that 6,250 cases of ALL will be diagnosed in the United States6, with about 1 in 3 cases in adults. Only approximately 20 to 40 percent of newly diagnosed adults with ALL are cured with current treatment regimens.7 For patients with relapsed or refractory adult ALL, the five-year overall survival rate is less than 10 percent.8

REFERENCES

1 Fielding A. et al. Outcome of 609 adults after relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL); an MRC UKALL12/ECOG 2993 study. Blood. 2006; 944-950.

2 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ144/pdf/PLAW-112publ144.pdf(link is external).Accessed July 11, 2015.

3 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Frequently Asked Questions: Breakthrough Therapies. Available at:http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDCAct/SignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/FDASIA/ucm341027.htm(link is external). Accessed July 11, 2015.

4 National Cancer Institute: Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Treatment (PDQ®) – General Information About Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL). Available at:http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/adultALL/HealthProfessional/page1(link is external). Accessed July 11, 2015.

5 American Cancer Society: Typical treatment of acute lymphocytic leukemia. Available at:http://www.cancer.org/cancer/leukemia-acutelymphocyticallinadults/detailedguide/leukemia-acute-lymphocytic-treating-typical-treatment(link is external). Accessed July 11, 2015.

6 American Cancer Society: What are the key statistics about acute lymphocytic leukemia? Available at:http://www.cancer.org/cancer/leukemia-acutelymphocyticallinadults/detailedguide/leukemia-acute-lymphocytic-key-statistics(link is external). Accessed February 18, 2015.

7 Manal Basyouni A. et al. Prognostic significance of survivin and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2011.08.1147.

8 Fielding A. et al. Outcome of 609 adults after relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL); an MRC UKALL12/ECOG 2993 study. Blood. 2006; 944-950.

9 Clinicaltrials.gov. A Study of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin versus Investigator’s Choice of Chemotherapy in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01564784?term=inotuzumab&rank=7(link is external). Accessed July 11, 2015.

10 Leonard J et al. Epratuzumab, a Humanized Anti-CD22 Antibody, in Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: a Phase I/II Clinical Trial Results. Clinical Cancer Research. 2004; 10: 5327-5334.

11 DiJoseph JF. Antitumor Efficacy of a Combination of CMC-544 (Inotuzumab Ozogamicin), a CD22-Targeted Cytotoxic Immunoconjugate of Calicheamicin, and Rituximab against Non-Hodgkin’s B-Cell Lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2006; 12: 242-250.

SOURCE

http://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer_s_inotuzumab_ozogamicin_receives_fda_breakthrough_therapy_designation_for_acute_lymphoblastic_leukemia_all

Other related article Published on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

STORY OF A LEUKEMIA FIGHTER

Nicole L. Gularte, MBA

Cancer & the Future: Immunotherapy

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/?s=Acute+Lymphoblastic+Leukemia+%28ALL%29+

Read Full Post »

Keystone Symposia on Molecular and Cellular Biology – 2016-2017 Forthcoming Conferences in Life Sciences

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

2016-2017 Forthcoming Conferences in Life Sciences by topic:

DNA Replication and Recombination (Z2)
April 2 – 6, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: John F.X. Diffley, Anja Groth and Scott Keeney

Immunology

Translational Vaccinology for Global Health (S1)
October 25 – 29, 2016 | London, United Kingdom
Scientific Organizers: Christopher L. Karp, Gagandeep Kang and Rino Rappuoli

Hemorrhagic Fever Viruses (S3)
December 4 – 8, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: William E. Dowling and Thomas W. Geisbert

Cell Plasticity within the Tumor Microenvironment (A1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Big Sky, Montana, USA
Scientific Organizers: Sergei Grivennikov, Florian R. Greten and Mikala Egeblad

TGF-ß in Immunity, Inflammation and Cancer (A3)
January 9 – 13, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Wanjun Chen, Joanne E. Konkel and Richard A. Flavell

New Developments in Our Basic Understanding of Tuberculosis (A5)
January 14 – 18, 2017 | Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Samuel M. Behar and Valerie Mizrahi

PI3K Pathways in Immunology, Growth Disorders and Cancer (A6)
January 19 – 23, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Leon O. Murphy, Klaus Okkenhaug and Sabina C. Cosulich

Biobetters and Next-Generation Biologics: Innovative Strategies for Optimally Effective Therapies (A7)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Snowbird, Utah, USA
Scientific Organizers: Cherié L. Butts, Amy S. Rosenberg, Amy D. Klion and Sachdev S. Sidhu

Obesity and Adipose Tissue Biology (J4)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Marc L. Reitman, Ruth E. Gimeno and Jan Nedergaard

Inflammation-Driven Cancer: Mechanisms to Therapy (J7)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Fiona M. Powrie, Michael Karin and Alberto Mantovani

Autophagy Network Integration in Health and Disease (B2)
February 12 – 16, 2017 | Copper Mountain, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Ivan Dikic, Katja Simon and J. Wade Harper

Asthma: From Pathway Biology to Precision Therapeutics (B3)
February 12 – 16, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Clare M. Lloyd, John V. Fahy and Sally Wenzel-Morganroth

Viral Immunity: Mechanisms and Consequences (B4)
February 19 – 23, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Akiko Iwasaki, Daniel B. Stetson and E. John Wherry

Lipidomics and Bioactive Lipids in Metabolism and Disease (B6)
February 26 – March 2, 2017 | Tahoe City, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alfred H. Merrill, Walter Allen Shaw, Sarah Spiegel and Michael J.O.Wakelam

Bile Acid Receptors as Signal Integrators in Liver and Metabolism (C1)
March 3 – 7, 2017 | Monterey, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Luciano Adorini, Kristina Schoonjans and Scott L. Friedman

Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy: Taking a Place in Mainstream Oncology (C7)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Robert D. Schreiber, James P. Allison, Philip D. Greenberg and Glenn Dranoff

Pattern Recognition Signaling: From Innate Immunity to Inflammatory Disease (X5)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Thirumala-Devi Kanneganti, Vishva M. Dixit and Mohamed Lamkanfi

Type I Interferon: Friend and Foe Alike (X6)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Alan Sher, Virginia Pascual, Adolfo García-Sastre and Anne O’Garra

Injury, Inflammation and Fibrosis (C8)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Snowbird, Utah, USA
Scientific Organizers: Tatiana Kisseleva, Michael Karin and Andrew M. Tager

Immune Regulation in Autoimmunity and Cancer (D1)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: David A. Hafler, Vijay K. Kuchroo and Jane L. Grogan

B Cells and T Follicular Helper Cells – Controlling Long-Lived Immunity (D2)
April 23 – 27, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Stuart G. Tangye, Ignacio Sanz and Hai Qi

Mononuclear Phagocytes in Health, Immune Defense and Disease (D3)
April 30 – May 4, 2017 | Austin, Texas, USA
Scientific Organizers: Steffen Jung and Miriam Merad

Modeling Viral Infections and Immunity (E1)
May 1 – 4, 2017 | Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alan S. Perelson, Rob J. De Boer and Phillip D. Hodgkin

Integrating Metabolism and Immunity (E4)
May 29 – June 2, 2017 | Dublin, Ireland
Scientific Organizers: Hongbo Chi, Erika L. Pearce, Richard A. Flavell and Luke A.J. O’Neill

Neuroinflammation: Concepts, Characteristics, Consequences (E5)
June 19 – 23, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Richard M. Ransohoff, Christopher K. Glass and V. Hugh Perry

Infectious Diseases

Translational Vaccinology for Global Health (S1)
October 25 – 29, 2016 | London, United Kingdom
Scientific Organizers: Christopher L. Karp, Gagandeep Kang and Rino Rappuoli

Hemorrhagic Fever Viruses (S3)
December 4 – 8, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: William E. Dowling and Thomas W. Geisbert

Cellular Stress Responses and Infectious Agents (S4)
December 4 – 8, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Margo A. Brinton, Sandra K. Weller and Beth Levine

New Developments in Our Basic Understanding of Tuberculosis (A5)
January 14 – 18, 2017 | Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Samuel M. Behar and Valerie Mizrahi

Autophagy Network Integration in Health and Disease (B2)
February 12 – 16, 2017 | Copper Mountain, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Ivan Dikic, Katja Simon and J. Wade Harper

Viral Immunity: Mechanisms and Consequences (B4)
February 19 – 23, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Akiko Iwasaki, Daniel B. Stetson and E. John Wherry

Malaria: From Innovation to Eradication (B5)
February 19 – 23, 2017 | Kampala, Uganda
Scientific Organizers: Marcel Tanner, Sarah K. Volkman, Marcus V.G. Lacerda and Salim Abdulla

Type I Interferon: Friend and Foe Alike (X6)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Alan Sher, Virginia Pascual, Adolfo García-Sastre and Anne O’Garra

HIV Vaccines (C9)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Steamboat Springs, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Andrew B. Ward, Penny L. Moore and Robin Shattock

Modeling Viral Infections and Immunity (E1)
May 1 – 4, 2017 | Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alan S. Perelson, Rob J. De Boer and Phillip D. Hodgkin

Metabolic Diseases

Mitochondria Communication (A4)
January 14 – 18, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jared Rutter, Cole M. Haynes and Marcia C. Haigis

Diabetes (J3)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jiandie Lin, Clay F. Semenkovich and Rohit N. Kulkarni

Obesity and Adipose Tissue Biology (J4)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Marc L. Reitman, Ruth E. Gimeno and Jan Nedergaard

Microbiome in Health and Disease (J8)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Julie A. Segre, Ramnik Xavier and William Michael Dunne

Bile Acid Receptors as Signal Integrators in Liver and Metabolism (C1)
March 3 – 7, 2017 | Monterey, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Luciano Adorini, Kristina Schoonjans and Scott L. Friedman

Sex and Gender Factors Affecting Metabolic Homeostasis, Diabetes and Obesity (C6)
March 19 – 22, 2017 | Tahoe City, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Franck Mauvais-Jarvis, Deborah Clegg and Arthur P. Arnold

Neuronal Control of Appetite, Metabolism and Weight (Z5)
May 9 – 13, 2017 | Copenhagen, Denmark
Scientific Organizers: Lora K. Heisler and Scott M. Sternson

Gastrointestinal Control of Metabolism (Z6)
May 9 – 13, 2017 | Copenhagen, Denmark
Scientific Organizers: Randy J. Seeley, Matthias H. Tschöp and Fiona M. Gribble

Integrating Metabolism and Immunity (E4)
May 29 – June 2, 2017 | Dublin, Ireland
Scientific Organizers: Hongbo Chi, Erika L. Pearce, Richard A. Flavell and Luke A.J. O’Neill

Neurobiology

Transcriptional and Epigenetic Control in Stem Cells (J1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Olympic Valley, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Konrad Hochedlinger, Kathrin Plath and Marius Wernig

Neurogenesis during Development and in the Adult Brain (J2)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Olympic Valley, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alysson R. Muotri, Kinichi Nakashima and Xinyu Zhao

Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases: Discovery and Models of Precision Therapy (C2)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Scientific Organizers: William A. Gahl and Christoph Klein

mRNA Processing and Human Disease (C3)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: James L. Manley, Siddhartha Mukherjee and Gideon Dreyfuss

Synapses and Circuits: Formation, Function, and Dysfunction (X1)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Tony Koleske, Yimin Zou, Kristin Scott and A. Kimberley McAllister

Connectomics (X2)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Olaf Sporns, Danielle Bassett and Jeremy Freeman

Neuronal Control of Appetite, Metabolism and Weight (Z5)
May 9 – 13, 2017 | Copenhagen, Denmark
Scientific Organizers: Lora K. Heisler and Scott M. Sternson

Neuroinflammation: Concepts, Characteristics, Consequences (E5)
June 19 – 23, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Richard M. Ransohoff, Christopher K. Glass and V. Hugh Perry

Plant Biology

Phytobiomes: From Microbes to Plant Ecosystems (S2)
November 8 – 12, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jan E. Leach, Kellye A. Eversole, Jonathan A. Eisen and Gwyn Beattie

Structural Biology

Frontiers of NMR in Life Sciences (C5)
March 12 – 16, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Kurt Wüthrich, Michael Sattler and Stephen W. Fesik

Technologies

Cell Plasticity within the Tumor Microenvironment (A1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Big Sky, Montana, USA
Scientific Organizers: Sergei Grivennikov, Florian R. Greten and Mikala Egeblad

Precision Genome Engineering (A2)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Breckenridge, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: J. Keith Joung, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Olivier Danos

Transcriptional and Epigenetic Control in Stem Cells (J1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Olympic Valley, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Konrad Hochedlinger, Kathrin Plath and Marius Wernig

Protein-RNA Interactions: Scale, Mechanisms, Structure and Function of Coding and Noncoding RNPs (J6)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Gene W. Yeo, Jernej Ule, Karla Neugebauer and Melissa J. Moore

Lipidomics and Bioactive Lipids in Metabolism and Disease (B6)
February 26 – March 2, 2017 | Tahoe City, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alfred H. Merrill, Walter Allen Shaw, Sarah Spiegel and Michael J.O.Wakelam

Connectomics (X2)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Olaf Sporns, Danielle Bassett and Jeremy Freeman

Engineered Cells and Tissues as Platforms for Discovery and Therapy (K1)
March 9 – 12, 2017 | Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Scientific Organizers: Laura E. Niklason, Milica Radisic and Nenad Bursac

Frontiers of NMR in Life Sciences (C5)
March 12 – 16, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Kurt Wüthrich, Michael Sattler and Stephen W. Fesik

October 2016

Translational Vaccinology for Global Health (S1)
October 25 – 29, 2016 | London, United Kingdom
Scientific Organizers: Christopher L. Karp, Gagandeep Kang and Rino Rappuoli

November 2016

Phytobiomes: From Microbes to Plant Ecosystems (S2)
November 8 – 12, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jan E. Leach, Kellye A. Eversole, Jonathan A. Eisen and Gwyn Beattie

December 2016

Hemorrhagic Fever Viruses (S3)
December 4 – 8, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: William E. Dowling and Thomas W. Geisbert

Cellular Stress Responses and Infectious Agents (S4)
December 4 – 8, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Margo A. Brinton, Sandra K. Weller and Beth Levine

January 2017

Cell Plasticity within the Tumor Microenvironment (A1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Big Sky, Montana, USA
Scientific Organizers: Sergei Grivennikov, Florian R. Greten and Mikala Egeblad

Precision Genome Engineering (A2)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Breckenridge, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: J. Keith Joung, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Olivier Danos

Transcriptional and Epigenetic Control in Stem Cells (J1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Olympic Valley, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Konrad Hochedlinger, Kathrin Plath and Marius Wernig

Neurogenesis during Development and in the Adult Brain (J2)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Olympic Valley, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alysson R. Muotri, Kinichi Nakashima and Xinyu Zhao

TGF-ß in Immunity, Inflammation and Cancer (A3)
January 9 – 13, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Wanjun Chen, Joanne E. Konkel and Richard A. Flavell

Mitochondria Communication (A4)
January 14 – 18, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jared Rutter, Cole M. Haynes and Marcia C. Haigis

New Developments in Our Basic Understanding of Tuberculosis (A5)
January 14 – 18, 2017 | Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Samuel M. Behar and Valerie Mizrahi

PI3K Pathways in Immunology, Growth Disorders and Cancer (A6)
January 19 – 23, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Leon O. Murphy, Klaus Okkenhaug and Sabina C. Cosulich

Biobetters and Next-Generation Biologics: Innovative Strategies for Optimally Effective Therapies (A7)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Snowbird, Utah, USA
Scientific Organizers: Cherié L. Butts, Amy S. Rosenberg, Amy D. Klion and Sachdev S. Sidhu

Diabetes (J3)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jiandie Lin, Clay F. Semenkovich and Rohit N. Kulkarni

Obesity and Adipose Tissue Biology (J4)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Marc L. Reitman, Ruth E. Gimeno and Jan Nedergaard

Omics Strategies to Study the Proteome (A8)
January 29 – February 2, 2017 | Breckenridge, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alan Saghatelian, Chuan He and Ileana M. Cristea

Epigenetics and Human Disease: Progress from Mechanisms to Therapeutics (A9)
January 29 – February 2, 2017 | Seattle, Washington, USA
Scientific Organizers: Johnathan R. Whetstine, Jessica K. Tyler and Rab K. Prinjha

Hematopoiesis (B1)
January 31 – February 4, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Catriona H.M. Jamieson, Andreas Trumpp and Paul S. Frenette

February 2017

Noncoding RNAs: From Disease to Targeted Therapeutics (J5)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Kevin V. Morris, Archa Fox and Paloma Hoban Giangrande

Protein-RNA Interactions: Scale, Mechanisms, Structure and Function of Coding and Noncoding RNPs (J6)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Gene W. Yeo, Jernej Ule, Karla Neugebauer and Melissa J. Moore

Inflammation-Driven Cancer: Mechanisms to Therapy (J7)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Fiona M. Powrie, Michael Karin and Alberto Mantovani

Microbiome in Health and Disease (J8)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Julie A. Segre, Ramnik Xavier and William Michael Dunne

Autophagy Network Integration in Health and Disease (B2)
February 12 – 16, 2017 | Copper Mountain, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Ivan Dikic, Katja Simon and J. Wade Harper

Asthma: From Pathway Biology to Precision Therapeutics (B3)
February 12 – 16, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Clare M. Lloyd, John V. Fahy and Sally Wenzel-Morganroth

Viral Immunity: Mechanisms and Consequences (B4)
February 19 – 23, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Akiko Iwasaki, Daniel B. Stetson and E. John Wherry

Malaria: From Innovation to Eradication (B5)
February 19 – 23, 2017 | Kampala, Uganda
Scientific Organizers: Marcel Tanner, Sarah K. Volkman, Marcus V.G. Lacerda and Salim Abdulla

Lipidomics and Bioactive Lipids in Metabolism and Disease (B6)
February 26 – March 2, 2017 | Tahoe City, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alfred H. Merrill, Walter Allen Shaw, Sarah Spiegel and Michael J.O.Wakelam

March 2017

Bile Acid Receptors as Signal Integrators in Liver and Metabolism (C1)
March 3 – 7, 2017 | Monterey, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Luciano Adorini, Kristina Schoonjans and Scott L. Friedman

Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases: Discovery and Models of Precision Therapy (C2)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Scientific Organizers: William A. Gahl and Christoph Klein

mRNA Processing and Human Disease (C3)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: James L. Manley, Siddhartha Mukherjee and Gideon Dreyfuss

Kinases: Next-Generation Insights and Approaches (C4)
March 5 – 9, 2017 | Breckenridge, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Reid M. Huber, John Kuriyan and Ruth H. Palmer

Synapses and Circuits: Formation, Function, and Dysfunction (X1)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Tony Koleske, Yimin Zou, Kristin Scott and A. Kimberley McAllister

Connectomics (X2)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Olaf Sporns, Danielle Bassett and Jeremy Freeman

Tumor Metabolism: Mechanisms and Targets (X3)
March 5 – 9, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Brendan D. Manning, Kathryn E. Wellen and Reuben J. Shaw

Adaptations to Hypoxia in Physiology and Disease (X4)
March 5 – 9, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: M. Celeste Simon, Amato J. Giaccia and Randall S. Johnson

Engineered Cells and Tissues as Platforms for Discovery and Therapy (K1)
March 9 – 12, 2017 | Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Scientific Organizers: Laura E. Niklason, Milica Radisic and Nenad Bursac

Frontiers of NMR in Life Sciences (C5)
March 12 – 16, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Kurt Wüthrich, Michael Sattler and Stephen W. Fesik

Sex and Gender Factors Affecting Metabolic Homeostasis, Diabetes and Obesity (C6)
March 19 – 22, 2017 | Tahoe City, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Franck Mauvais-Jarvis, Deborah Clegg and Arthur P. Arnold

Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy: Taking a Place in Mainstream Oncology (C7)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Robert D. Schreiber, James P. Allison, Philip D. Greenberg and Glenn Dranoff

Pattern Recognition Signaling: From Innate Immunity to Inflammatory Disease (X5)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Thirumala-Devi Kanneganti, Vishva M. Dixit and Mohamed Lamkanfi

Type I Interferon: Friend and Foe Alike (X6)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Alan Sher, Virginia Pascual, Adolfo García-Sastre and Anne O’Garra

Injury, Inflammation and Fibrosis (C8)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Snowbird, Utah, USA
Scientific Organizers: Tatiana Kisseleva, Michael Karin and Andrew M. Tager

HIV Vaccines (C9)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Steamboat Springs, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Andrew B. Ward, Penny L. Moore and Robin Shattock

Immune Regulation in Autoimmunity and Cancer (D1)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: David A. Hafler, Vijay K. Kuchroo and Jane L. Grogan

Molecular Mechanisms of Heart Development (X7)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Benoit G. Bruneau, Brian L. Black and Margaret E. Buckingham

RNA-Based Approaches in Cardiovascular Disease (X8)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Thomas Thum and Roger J. Hajjar

April 2017

Genomic Instability and DNA Repair (Z1)
April 2 – 6, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Julia Promisel Cooper, Marco F. Foiani and Geneviève Almouzni

DNA Replication and Recombination (Z2)
April 2 – 6, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: John F.X. Diffley, Anja Groth and Scott Keeney

B Cells and T Follicular Helper Cells – Controlling Long-Lived Immunity (D2)
April 23 – 27, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Stuart G. Tangye, Ignacio Sanz and Hai Qi

Mononuclear Phagocytes in Health, Immune Defense and Disease (D3)
April 30 – May 4, 2017 | Austin, Texas, USA
Scientific Organizers: Steffen Jung and Miriam Merad

May 2017

Modeling Viral Infections and Immunity (E1)
May 1 – 4, 2017 | Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alan S. Perelson, Rob J. De Boer and Phillip D. Hodgkin

Angiogenesis and Vascular Disease (Z3)
May 8 – 12, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: M. Luisa Iruela-Arispe, Timothy T. Hla and Courtney Griffin

Mitochondria, Metabolism and Heart (Z4)
May 8 – 12, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Junichi Sadoshima, Toren Finkel and Åsa B. Gustafsson

Neuronal Control of Appetite, Metabolism and Weight (Z5)
May 9 – 13, 2017 | Copenhagen, Denmark
Scientific Organizers: Lora K. Heisler and Scott M. Sternson

Gastrointestinal Control of Metabolism (Z6)
May 9 – 13, 2017 | Copenhagen, Denmark
Scientific Organizers: Randy J. Seeley, Matthias H. Tschöp and Fiona M. Gribble

Aging and Mechanisms of Aging-Related Disease (E2)
May 15 – 19, 2017 | Yokohama, Japan
Scientific Organizers: Kazuo Tsubota, Shin-ichiro Imai, Matt Kaeberlein and Joan Mannick

Single Cell Omics (E3)
May 26 – 30, 2017 | Stockholm, Sweden
Scientific Organizers: Sarah Teichmann, Evan W. Newell and William J. Greenleaf

Integrating Metabolism and Immunity (E4)
May 29 – June 2, 2017 | Dublin, Ireland
Scientific Organizers: Hongbo Chi, Erika L. Pearce, Richard A. Flavell and Luke A.J. O’Neill

Cell Death and Inflammation (K2)
May 29 – June 2, 2017 | Dublin, Ireland
Scientific Organizers: Seamus J. Martin and John Silke

June 2017

Neuroinflammation: Concepts, Characteristics, Consequences (E5)
June 19 – 23, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Richard M. Ransohoff, Christopher K. Glass and V. Hugh Perry

SOURCE

Read Full Post »

Pull at Cancer’s Levers, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 1: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)

Pull at Cancer’s Levers

Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

Driving Cancer Immunotherapy 

The Stakes in Immuno-Oncology Are Too High for Researchers to Pull at Cancer’s Levers Blindly. Researchers Need a System.

  • Within the past decade or so, a revolutionary idea has emerged in the minds of scientists, physicians, and medical experts. Instead of using man-made chemicals to treat cancer, let us instead unleash the power of our own bodies upon the malignancy.

    This idea is the inspiration behind cancer immunotherapy, which is, according to most experts, a therapeutic approach that involves training the immune system to fight off cancer. In the words of one expert, cancer immunotherapy means “taking the immune system’s inherent properties and turbo charging those to fight cancer.”

    Cancer immunotherapy technologies are being developed to accomplish
    several tasks:

    • Enhance the molecular targeting of cancer cells
    • Report the rate of killing by specific immune agents
    • Direct immune cells toward tumor destruction.

    Since its inception, the field has evolved, and it continues to do so. It began with in vivo investigations of tumor growth and development, and it progressed through laboratory investigations of cellular morphology and survival curves. And now it is adopting pathway analysis to guide therapeutic development and improve patient care.

    To begin to understand cancer immunotherapy, one must understand how the immune system targets tumor cells. One of the prominent adaptive components of the immune system is the T cell, which responds to perceived threats through the massive increase in clonal T cells targeted in some way toward the diseased cell or pathogen.

  • The T-Cell Repertoire

    Adaptive Biotechnologies’ immunoSEQ Assay, a high-throughput research platform for immune system profiling, is designed to generate sequencer-ready libraries using highly optimized primer sets in a multiplex PCR format that targets T- and B-cell receptor genes. This image depicts how the assay’s two-step PCR process can be used to quantify the clonal diversity of immune cells.

    Immunologists call this process VJD rearrangement. It happens during T-lymphocyte development and affects three gene regions, the variable (V), the diversity (D), and the joining (J) regions. This rearrangement of the genetic code allow for the structural diversity in T-cell receptors responsible for antigenic specificity including antigenic targets on tumor cells. In the case of cancer, specificity is complicated because the tumor is actually part of the body itself, one of the reasons cancers naturally evade detection.

    The specificity problem would always hinder attempts to goad the immune system into attacking cancer, scientists realized, unless technologies emerged that could efficiently track the clonal diversity of T cells inside patients. Existing technologies, such as spectratyping, were inadequate.  In 2007, when Dr. Robins and his collaborators began developing the technology, only 10,000 T-cell receptor sequences had been reported in all the literature using older methodologies.

    “The immunology field of the time had no connection with high-throughput sequencing,” notes Dr. Robins, recalling his days as a computational biologist for the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. “It became clear that instead of using this old technology to look at T-cell receptors, we could just directly sequence them—if we could amplify them correctly.”

    With its first experiment, Dr. Robins’ team ended up with six million T-cell receptor sequences. “Our approach,” Dr. Robins modestly suggests, “kind of changed the scale of what we were able to do.” The team went on to develop advanced multiplex sequencing technology, doing work that essentially started the field of immune sequencing. “Previously,” maintains Dr. Robins, “no one had ever been able to quantitatively do a multiplex PCR.”

    Adaptive Biotechnologies’ product, the ImmunoSEQ® assay, uses several hundred primer pairs to quantify the clonal diversity of T cells. Using this technology, researchers and clinicians can focus on T-cell clones that are expanded specifically in or near a tumor or that are circulating in the blood stream.

    “You obviously can’t get a serial sample of the tumor,” explains Dr. Robins, “but you can get serial samples of blood,” allowing for immune cell repertoire tracking during the progression of a disease. The technology is already being used to assess leukemias in the clinic, directly tracking the leukemia itself based on the massive clonal expansion of a single cancerous B or T cell.

    Eventually, Dr. Robins’ team hopes to monitor serial changes in T cell clones before, during, and after therapeutic intervention. The team has even developed a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) assay to examine clones that are attracted to tumors.

     

Circulating Tumor Cells

“Years ago, they were just interested in what was happening in the tumor,” says Daniel Adams, senior research scientist at Creatv MicroTech. “Now people have realized that the immune system is reacting to the tumor.”

Scientists such as Adams have been tracking tumor cells and tumor-modified stromal cells, as well as components of the non-adaptive immune system, directly within the bloodstream to examine changes that occur over time.

“We can’t go back in to re-biopsy the patient every year, or every time there is a recurrence,” says Adams, “It’s just not feasible.”

That is why Creatv MicroTech, with locations in Maryland and New Jersey, has developed the CellSieve, a mechanical cell filter. The CellSieve, which improves on older technology through better polymers and engineering, isolates circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and stromal cells in order to capture them for further clinical analysis.

Isolation, culture and expansion of cells isolated on CellSieve™. (A) MCF-7 cells spiked into vacutainers, isolated by filtration and cultured on CellSieve for 2-3 weeks. A 3 dimensional cluster attributed to this cell line is seen on the filter. (green=anti-cytokeratin, blue=DAPI) (B) PANC-1 cells spiked into vacutainers, isolated by filtration and grown on CellSieve for 2-3 weeks. PANC-1 is seen growing as a monolayer on the filter. (C) SKBR3 cells are spiked into blood, filtered by CellSieve. The CTCs are identified by presence of anti-cytokeratin and anti-EpCAM, and absence of anti-CD45. After CTCs are counted, cells are subtyped by HER2 FISH. (D) SKBR3 cells are spiked into vacutainers, isolated by filtration and grown on CellSieve for 2-3 weeks. Expanded colonies were directly analyzed as a whole colony and as individual cells, molecularly by HER2/CR17 FISH probes. (E) Circulating stromal cell, e.g. a 70 µm giant cancer associated macrophage can be identified for clinical use, myeloid marker in red. (F) A cell of interest can be identified and restained with immunotherapeutic biomarkers, e.g. PD-L1 (green) and PD-1 (purple). (G) After filtration, cells were identified with histopathological stains (e.g. H&E) for cytological analysis. (H) After H&E, external cell structures were analyzed by SEM. [Creatv MicroTech].

 

“As a patient goes through therapy, the patient’s resistance builds, and the cancer recurs in different subpopulations,” states Adams. “And after a few years, the original tumor mass is no longer applicable to what is growing in the patient farther down the road.”

Although CTCs are exceedingly rare in the bloodstream, with just one or two in every 5 to 10 mL of blood, and although these cells have a very low viability, the surviving CTCs have a high prognostic value.

“We looked at 30 to 40 breast cancer patients over two years,” reports Adams. “And we showed that if you have a dividing CTC, you have a 90% chance of dying in two years and a 100% chance of dying within two and half years.”

Furthermore, the immune system response can be tracked, says Adams, by examining stromal cells, which can also be collected with the CellSieve filtration device. That is, these cells can be collected serially. Much recent evidence supports the conclusion that stromal cells in the tumor environment co-evolve with the tumor, suggesting that stromal marker changes reflect tumor changes.

“There is this plethora of stromal cells and tumor cells out there in the circulation for you to look at,” declares Adams. “Once the cells are isolated, you can subject them to pathological approaches, biomarker approaches, or molecular approaches—or all of the above.”

A MicroTech Creatv study published in the Royal Society of Chemistry showed the efficacy of following up CTC isolation with techniques such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), histopathological analysis, and cell culture.

Cancer-Killing Assays

Diverse mechanisms are at play in cancer biology. Our understanding of these mechanisms contributes to a couple of virtuous cycles. It strengthens and is strengthened by diagnostic approaches, such as immune- and tumor-cell monitoring. The same could be said of therapeutic approaches. Cancer biology will inform and be informed by cancer immunotherapies such as adoptive cell transfer. To maintain the virtuous cycle, however, it will be necessary to conduct in vitro testing.

“There is no doubt that immunotherapy is going to play a major role in the treatment of cancer,” says Brandon Lamarche, Ph.D., technical communicator and scientist at ACEA Biosciences. “Regardless of what the route is, what is going to have to happen in terms of the research area is that you need an effective cell-killing assay.”

ACEA Biosciences, a San Diego-based company, has developed a microtiter plate that is coated with gold electrodes across 75% of the well bottoms. When the microtiter plates are placed in the company’s xCELLigence plate reader, the electrodes enable the detection of changes in cell morphology and viability through electrical impedance.

“The instrument provides a weak electric potential to the electrodes on the plate, so you get electrons flowing between these electrodes,” explains Dr. Lamarche. Researchers can then apply reagents or non-adherent immune cell suspensions to adherent cancer cells and examine the effect.

Dr. Lamarche asserts that the xCELLigence system overcomes problems that bedevil competing cell-killing assays. These problems include leaky and radioactive labels, such as chromium 51, and assays that can only provide users with an endpoint for cell killing. “With xCELLigence,” he insists, “you’re getting the full spectrum of what’s happening, and there’s all kinds of subtleties in the cell-killing curves that are very informative in terms of the biology.”

ACEA would like to see the xCELLigence system become the new standard in cell-killing assays from standard research to clinical testing on patient tumors. Dr. Lamarche envisions a day when patient tumor cells are quickly screened with therapeutic scenarios to determine the most efficacious killing option. “xCELLigence technology,” he suggests, “enables you to quickly sample a broad spectrum of conditions with a very simple workflow.”

Bioinformatics of Immuno-Oncology

From monitoring to treatment modalities, the field of cancer immunotherapy is aided by bioinformatics-minded data-mining experts, such as the analysts at Thompson-Reuters who are compiling data archives and applying advanced analytics to find new targets. “Essentially,” says Richard Harrison Ph.D., the company’s chief scientific officer for the life science division, “for every stage within pharmaceutical drug development, we have a database associated with that.”

The analysts at Thompson-Reuters curate and compile databases such as MedaCore and Cortellis, which they provide to their clients to help them with their research and clinical studies. “We can take customer data, and using our tools and our pathway maps, we can help them understand what their data is telling them,” explains Dr. Harrison.

Matt Wampole, Ph.D., a solutions scientist at Thompson-Reuters, spends his days reaching out and working with customers to help them understand and better use the company’s products. “Bench researchers,” he points out, “don’t necessarily know what is upstream of whatever expression change might be leading to a particular change in regulation.” Dr. Wampole indicates that he is part of a “solution team” that aids clients in determining important signaling cascades, regulators, and so on.

“We have a group of individuals who are very ‘skilling’ experts in the field,” Dr. Wampole continues, “including experts in the areas such as biostatistics, data curation, and data analytics. These experts help clients identify models, stratify patients, understand mechanisms, and look into disease mechanisms.”

Dr. Harrison sums up the Thompson-Reuters approach as follows: “We look for master regulators that can serve as both targets and biomarkers.” By examining the gene signatures from both the patient and from curated datasets, in the case of cancer immunotherapy, they hope to segregate patients according to what drugs will work best for them.

  • “We are working with a number of pharmaceutical companies to put our approach into practice for clinical trials,” informs Dr. Harrison. The approach has already been applied in several studies, including one that used data analysis of cell lines to help predict drug response in patients. Another study helped stratify glioblastoma patients.

  • Tumor-Targeted Delivery Platform

    PsiOxus Therapeutics, which is focused on immune therapeutics in oncology, has developed a patented platform for tumor-targeted delivery based on its oncolytic vaccine, Enadenotucirev (EnAd), which can be delivered systemically via intravenous administration.

    According to company officials, EnAd’s anti-cancer scope can be expanded by adding new genes, thereby enabling the creation of a broad range of unique immuno-oncology therapeutics. In a recent study conducted at the University of Oxford, researchers led by Philip G. Jakeman, Ph.D., sought to improve the models for evaluating cancer therapeutics by introducing ex vivo methodologies for research into colorectal cancer.

    The ex vivo approach utilized was able to exploit a major advantage by preserving the three-dimensional architecture of the tumor and its associated compartments, including immune cells. The study, which was presented at the International Summit on Oncolytic Viral Therapeutics in Quebec, showed the tissue slice model can provide a novel means to assessing an oncolytic vaccine in a system that more accurately recapitulates human tumors, provide a more stringent test for oncolytic viruses, such as EnAd, and allow study of the human immune cells within the tumor 3D context.

    By maintaining the components of the tumor immune microenvironment, this new methodology could become useful in analyzing anti-viral responses within tumors, or even in evaluating therapeutics that target immunosuppressive tumor micro-environments, noted the Oxford team.

     

 

Deciphering the Cancer Transcriptome

A Rogue’s Gallery of Malignant Outliers May Hide in Transcriptome Profiles That Emphasize Averages

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articles/deciphering-the-cancer-transcriptome/5729/

 

The key link between genomic instability and cancer progression is transcriptome dynamics. The shifts in transcriptome dynamics that contribute to cancer evolution may come down to statistical outliers. [iStock/zmeel]

  • In recent years, scientists have adopted a gene-centric view of cancer, a tendency to see each malignant transformation as the consequence of alterations in a discrete number of genes or pathways. These alterations are, fortunately, absent from healthy cells, but they pervert malignant cells.

    The gene-centric view takes in molecular landscapes illuminated by genomic and transcriptomic technologies. For example, genomes can be cost-effectively sequenced within hours. Such capabilities have made it possible to interrogate associations between genotypes and phenotypes for increasing numbers of conditions, and to collect data from progressively larger patient groups.

    As genomic and transcriptomic technologies rise, they reveal much—but much remains hidden, too. Perhaps these technologies are less like the sun and more like the proverbial streetlight, the one that narrows our searches because we’re inclined to stay in the light, even though what we hope to find may lie in the shadows.

    “Each individual study that looks at the cancer transcriptome is impressive and tells a convincing story, but if we put several high-quality papers together, there are very few genes that overlap,” says Henry H. Heng, Ph.D., professor of molecular medicine, genetics, and pathology at Wayne State University. “This shows that something is wrong.”

  • Distinct Karyotypes

    One of the major observations in Dr. Heng’s lab is that the intra- and intertumor cellular heterogeneity results in nearly every cancer cell having a unique, distinct karyotype, that is, an important but often ignored genotype. “Biological systems need a lot of heterogeneity,” notes Dr. Heng. “People like to think that this is noise, but heterogeneity is a fundamental buffer system for biological function to be achievable. Moreover, it is the key agent for cellular adaptation.”

    To capture the degree of genomic heterogeneity at the genome level and its impact on cancer cell growth, Dr. Heng and colleagues performed serial dilutions to isolate single mouse ovarian surface epithelial cells that had undergone spontaneous transformation. Spectral karyotyping revealed that within a short timeframe each of these unstable cells exhibited a very distinct karyotype. In these unstable cells, cloning at the level of the karyotype was not possible.

    Stable cells exhibited a normal growth distribution, i.e., no subset of stable cells contributed disproportionately to the overall growth of the cell population. In contrast, unstable cell populations showed a non-normal growth distribution, with few cells contributing most to the cell population’s growth. For example, a single unstable colony contributed more than 70% to the cell population’s growth. This finding suggests that although average profiles can be used to describe non-transformed cells, they cannot be taken to represent the biology of malignant cells.

    “Most people who study the transcriptome want to get rid of the noise, but the noise is in fact the strategy that cancer uses to be successful,” explains Dr. Heng. “Each individual cancer cell is very weak but together the entity becomes very robust.”

    In a recent model that Dr. Heng and colleagues proposed, system inheritance visualizes chromosomes not merely as the vehicle for transmitting genetic information, but as the genetic network organizer that shapes the physical interactions between genes in the three-dimensional space. Based on this model, individual genes represent parts of the system. The same genes can be reorganized to form different systems, and chromosomal instability becomes more important than the contribution of individual genes and pathways to cancer biology.

    The vital link between genomic instability and cancer progression is transcriptome dynamics, and the shifts in those dynamics that contribute to cancer evolution may come down to statistical outliers.

    “Transcriptome studies rarely focus on single-cell analyses, which means important outliers are frequently ignored,” declares Dr. Heng. “This preoccupation with uninformative averages explains why we have learned so little despite having examined so many transcriptomes.”

  • Chimeras and Fusion Genes

    “Our focus is on chimeric RNA molecules,” says Laising Yen, Ph.D, assistant professor of pathology at Baylor College of Medicine. “This category of RNAs is very special because their sequences come from different genes.”

    In a study that was designed to capture chimeric RNAs in prostate cancer, Dr. Yen and his colleagues performed high-throughput sequencing of the transcriptomes from human prostate cancer samples. “We found far more chimeric RNAs, in terms of abundance, and a number of species that are not seen in normal tissue,” reports Dr. Yen. This approach identified over 2,300 different chimeric RNA species. Some of these chimeras were present in prostate cancer cell lines, but not in primary human prostate epithelium cells, which points toward their relevance in cancer.

    “Most of these chimeric RNAs do not have a genomic counterpart, which means that they could be produced by trans-splicing,” explains Dr. Yen. During trans-splicing, individual RNAs are generated and trans-spliced together as a single RNA, which provides a mechanism for generating a chimera.

    “The other possibility is that in cancer cells, where gene–gene boundaries are known to become broken, chimeras can be formed by cis-splicing from a very long transcript that encodes several neighboring genes located on the same chromosome,” informs Dr. Yen. Chimeric RNAs formed by either of these two mechanisms can potentially translate into fusion proteins, and these aberrant proteins may have oncogenic consequences.

    Another effort in Dr. Yen’s laboratory focuses on chromosomal aberrations in ovarian cancer. One of the hallmarks of ovarian cancer is the high degree of genomic rearrangement and the increased genomic instability.

    “When we looked at ovarian cancers, we did not find as many chimeric RNAs,” notes Dr. Yen. “But we found many fusion genes.” Gene fusions, similarly to chimeric RNAs, increase the diversity of the cellular proteome, which could be used selectively by cancer cells to increase their rates of proliferation, survival, and migration.

    A recent study in Dr. Yen’s lab identified BCAM-AKT2, a recurrent fusion gene that is specific and unique to high-grade serous ovarian cancer. BCAM-AKT2 is the only fusion gene in this malignancy that was proved to be translated into a fusion kinase in patients, which points toward its functional significance and potential therapeutic value.

    “Recurrent fusion genes, which are repeatedly found in many patients in precisely made forms, indicate that there is a reason that they are present,” concludes Dr. Yen. “This might have important therapeutic implications.”

  • Context-Specific Patterns

    “We contributed to a study of tumor gene expresssion that we are currently revisiting because so much more data has become available,” says Barbara Stranger, Ph.D., assistant professor, Institute for Genomics and Systems Biology, University of Chicago. “The data is being processed in homogenized analytic pipelines, and we can look at many more tumor types across the Cancer Genome Atlas than a few years ago.”

    Previously, Dr. Stranger and colleagues performed expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) analyses to examine mRNA and miRNA expression in breast, colon, kidney, lung, and prostate cancer samples. This approach identified 149 known cancer risk loci, 42 of which were significantly associated with expression of at least one transcript.

    Causal alleles are being prioritized using a fine-mapping strategy that integrated the eQTL analysis with genome-wide DNAseI hypersensitivity profiles obtained from ENCODE data. These analyses are focusing on capturing differences across tumors and on performing comparisons with normal tissue, and one of the challenges is the lack of normal tissue from the same patients.

    “But still there is a lot of power in these analyses because they are based on large-scale genomic datasets. Also, these tumor datasets can be compared with large-scale normal tissue genomics datasets, such as the NIH’s Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project,” clarifies Dr. Stranger. “This helps us characterize differences between those tumors and normal tissue in terms of the genetics of gene regulation.”

    An ongoing effort in Dr. Stranger’s laboratory involves elucidating how the effect of genetic polymorphisms is shaped by context. Stimulated cellular states, cell-type differences, cellular senescence, and disease are some of the contexts that are known to impact genetic polymorphisms.

    “We have seen a lot of context specificity,” states Dr. Stranger. “Our observations suggest that a genetic polymorphism can have a specific effect in regulating a particular gene or transcript in one context, and another effect in another context.”

    Another example of cellular context is sex, and an active area of investigation in Dr. Stranger’s lab proposes to dissect the manner in which sex differences shape the regulatory effects of genetic polymorphisms.

    “Thinking about sex-specific differences is not very different from thinking about a different cellular environment,” notes Dr. Stranger.

    The expression of specific transcription factors can be determined by sex; consequently, a polymorphism that interacts with a transcription factor may have functional outcomes that can be seen in only one of the sexes.

    “There are gene-level and gene-splicing differences that we see in normal tissues between males and females, and we want to take the same approach and look at the cancer context to see whether the genetic regulation of gene expression and transcript splicing is different between individuals and whether it has a sex bias,” concludes Dr. Stranger. “Finally, we want to see how that differs in cancer relative to normal tissues.”

    Early Clinical Impact

An increasing number of clinicians are adding the cancer transcriptome to their precision medicine program. They have found that the transcriptome is important in identifying clinically impactful results. [iStock/DeoSum]

“Over the last two years,” says Andrew Kung, M.D., Ph.D., chief of the Division of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology, and Stem Cell Transplantation at Columbia University Medical Center, “we have included the cancer transcriptome as part of our precision medicine program.” Dr. Kung and colleagues developed a clinical genomics test that includes whole-exome sequencing of tumors and normal tissue and RNA-seq of the tumor.

“Our results show that the transcriptome is very important in identifying clinically impactful results,” asserts Dr. Kung. “The technology has really moved from a research tool to real clinical application.” In fact, the test has been approved by New York State for use in cancer patients.

The data from transcriptome profiling has enabled identification of translocations, verification of somatic alterations, and assessment of expression levels of cancer genes.  Dr. Kung and his colleagues are using genomic information for initial diagnosis and prognostic decisions, as well as the investigation of potentially actionable alterations and the monitoring of disease response.

To gain insight into gene-expression changes, transcriptome analysis usually compares two different types of tissues or cells. For example, analyses may attempt to identify differentially expressed genes in cancer cells and normal cells.

“In patients with cancer, we usually do not have access to the normal cell of origin, making it harder to identify the genes that are over- or under-expressed,” explains Dr. Kung. “Fortunately, the vast amounts of existing gene-expression data allow us to identify genes whose expression are most changed relative to models built on the expression data aggregated across large existing datasets.”

These genomic technologies were first used to augment the care of pediatric patients at Columbia. The technologies were so successful that they attracted philanthropic funding, which is being used to expand access to genomic testing to all children with high-risk cancer across New York City.

Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Immunotherapy in Combination, 2016 MassBio Annual Meeting  03/31/2016 8:00 AM – 04/01/2016 3:00 PM Royal Sonesta Hotel, Cambridge, MA

Live Press Coverage: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/04/01/plenary-session-immunotherapy-in-combination-2016-massbio-annual-meeting-03312016-800-am-04012016-300-pm-royal-sonesta-hotel-cambridge-ma/

 

Read Full Post »

Brain Cancer Vaccine in Development and other considerations

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

GEN News Highlights   Mar 3, 2016

Advanced Immunotherapeutic Method Shows Promise against Brain Cancer

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/advanced-immunotherapeutic-method-shows-promise-against-brain-cancer/81252433/

 

http://www.genengnews.com/Media/images/GENHighlight/Mar3_2016_LeuvenLab_CellDeathMouseBrain6232214015.jpg

The researchers induced a specific type of cell death in brain cancer cells from mice. The dying cancer cells were then incubated together with dendritic cells, which play a vital role in the immune system. The researchers discovered that this type of cancer cell killing releases “danger signals” that fully activate the dendritic cells. “We re-injected the activated dendritic cells into the mice as a therapeutic vaccine,” Professor Patrizia Agostinis explains. “That vaccine alerted the immune system to the presence of dangerous cancer cells in the body. As a result, the immune system could recognize them and start attacking the brain tumor.” [©KU Leuven Laboratory of Cell Death Research & Therapy, Dr. Abhishek D. Garg]

 

Scientists from KU Leuven in Belgium say they have shown that next-generation cell-based immunotherapy may offer new hope in the fight against brain cancer.

Cell-based immunotherapy involves the injection of a therapeutic anticancer vaccine that stimulates the patient’s immune system to attack the tumor. Thus far, the results of this type of immunotherapy have been mildly promising. However, Abhishek D. Garg and Professor Patrizia Agostinis from the KU Leuven department of cellular and molecular medicine believe they have found a novel way to produce more effective cell-based anticancer vaccines.

The researchers induced a specific type of cell death in brain cancer cells from mice. The dying cancer cells were then incubated together with dendritic cells, which play a vital role in the immune system. The investigators discovered that this type of cancer cell killing releases “danger signals” that fully activate the dendritic cells.

“We re-injected the activated dendritic cells into the mice as a therapeutic vaccine,” explains Prof. Agostinis. “That vaccine alerted the immune system to the presence of dangerous cancer cells in the body. As a result, the immune system could recognize them and start attacking the brain tumor.”

Combined with chemotherapy, this novel cell-based immunotherapy drastically increased the survival rates of mice afflicted with brain tumors. Almost 50% of the mice were completely cured. None of the mice treated with chemotherapy alone became long-term survivors.

“The major goal of any anticancer treatment is to kill all cancer cells and prevent any remaining malignant cells from growing or spreading again,” says Professor Agostinis. “This goal, however, is rarely achieved with current chemotherapies, and many patients relapse. That’s why the co-stimulation of the immune system is so important for cancer treatments. Scientists have to look for ways to kill cancer cells in a manner that stimulates the immune system. With an eye on clinical studies, our findings offer a feasible way to improve the production of vaccines against brain tumors.”

The team published its study (“Dendritic Cell Vaccines Based on Immunogenic Cell Death Elicit Danger Signals and T Cell–Driven Rejection of High-Grade Glioma”) in Science Translational Medicine.

 

Dendritic cell vaccines based on immunogenic cell death elicit danger signals and T cell–driven rejection of high-grade glioma

 

SLC7A11 expression is associated with seizures and predicts poor survival in patients with malignant glioma

 

Cortical GABAergic excitation contributes to epileptic activities around human glioma

 

Spherical Nucleic Acid Nanoparticle Conjugates as an RNAi-Based Therapy for Glioblastoma

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a neurologically debilitating disease that culminates in death 14 to 16 months after diagnosis. An incomplete understanding of how cataloged genetic aberrations promote therapy resistance, combined with ineffective drug delivery to the central nervous system, has rendered GBM incurable. Functional genomics efforts have implicated several oncogenes in GBM pathogenesis but have rarely led to the implementation of targeted therapies. This is partly because many “undruggable” oncogenes cannot be targeted by small molecules or antibodies. We preclinically evaluate an RNA interference (RNAi)–based nanomedicine platform, based on spherical nucleic acid (SNA) nanoparticle conjugates, to neutralize oncogene expression in GBM. SNAs consist of gold nanoparticles covalently functionalized with densely packed, highly oriented small interfering RNA duplexes. In the absence of auxiliary transfection strategies or chemical modifications, SNAs efficiently entered primary and transformed glial cells in vitro. In vivo, the SNAs penetrated the blood-brain barrier and blood-tumor barrier to disseminate throughout xenogeneic glioma explants. SNAs targeting the oncoprotein Bcl2Like12 (Bcl2L12)—an effector caspase and p53 inhibitor overexpressed in GBM relative to normal brain and low-grade astrocytomas—were effective in knocking down endogenous Bcl2L12 mRNA and protein levels, and sensitized glioma cells toward therapy-induced apoptosis by enhancing effector caspase and p53 activity. Further, systemically delivered SNAs reduced Bcl2L12 expression in intracerebral GBM, increased intratumoral apoptosis, and reduced tumor burden and progression in xenografted mice, without adverse side effects. Thus, silencing antiapoptotic signaling using SNAs represents a new approach for systemic RNAi therapy for GBM and possibly other lethal malignancies.

 

Rapid, Label-Free Detection of Brain Tumors with Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy

Surgery is an essential component in the treatment of brain tumors. However, delineating tumor from normal brain remains a major challenge. We describe the use of stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) microscopy for differentiating healthy human and mouse brain tissue from tumor-infiltrated brain based on histoarchitectural and biochemical differences. Unlike traditional histopathology, SRS is a label-free technique that can be rapidly performed in situ. SRS microscopy was able to differentiate tumor from nonneoplastic tissue in an infiltrative human glioblastoma xenograft mouse model based on their different Raman spectra. We further demonstrated a correlation between SRS and hematoxylin and eosin microscopy for detection of glioma infiltration (κ = 0.98). Finally, we applied SRS microscopy in vivo in mice during surgery to reveal tumor margins that were undetectable under standard operative conditions. By providing rapid intraoperative assessment of brain tissue, SRS microscopy may ultimately improve the safety and accuracy of surgeries where tumor boundaries are visually indistinct.

 

Neural Stem Cell–Mediated Enzyme/Prodrug Therapy for Glioma: Preclinical Studies

 

Magnetic Resonance Metabolic Imaging of Glioma

 

Exploiting the Immunogenic Potential of Cancer Cells for Improved Dendritic Cell Vaccines

Cancer immunotherapy is currently the hottest topic in the oncology field, owing predominantly to the discovery of immune checkpoint blockers. These promising antibodies and their attractive combinatorial features have initiated the revival of other effective immunotherapies, such as dendritic cell (DC) vaccinations. Although DC-based immunotherapy can induce objective clinical and immunological responses in several tumor types, the immunogenic potential of this monotherapy is still considered suboptimal. Hence, focus should be directed on potentiating its immunogenicity by making step-by-step protocol innovations to obtain next-generation Th1-driving DC vaccines. We review some of the latest developments in the DC vaccination field, with a special emphasis on strategies that are applied to obtain a highly immunogenic tumor cell cargo to load and to activate the DCs. To this end, we discuss the effects of three immunogenic treatment modalities (ultraviolet light, oxidizing treatments, and heat shock) and five potent inducers of immunogenic cell death [radiotherapy, shikonin, high-hydrostatic pressure, oncolytic viruses, and (hypericin-based) photodynamic therapy] on DC biology and their application in DC-based immunotherapy in preclinical as well as clinical settings.

Cancer immunotherapy has gained considerable momentum over the past 5 years, owing predominantly to the discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors. These inhibitors are designed to release the brakes of the immune system that under physiological conditions prevent auto-immunity by negatively regulating cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) function. Following the FDA approval of the anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody (mAb) ipilimumab (Yervoy) in 2011 for the treatment of metastatic melanoma patients (1), two mAbs targeting programed death (PD)-1 receptor signaling (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) have very recently joined the list of FDA-approved checkpoint blockers (respectively, for the treatment of metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer and relapsed/refractory melanoma patients) (2, 3).

However, the primary goal of cancer immunotherapy is to activate the immune system in cancer patients. This requires the induction of tumor-specific T-cell-mediated antitumor immunity. Checkpoint blockers are only able to abrogate the brakes of a functioning antitumoral immune response, implying that only patients who have pre-existing tumor-specific T cells will benefit most from checkpoint blockade. This is evidenced by the observation that ipilimumab may be more effective in patients who have pre-existing, albeit ineffective, antitumor immune responses (4). Hence, combining immune checkpoint blockade with immunotherapeutic strategies that prime tumor-specific T cell responses might be an attractive and even synergistic approach. This relatively new paradigm has lead to the revival of existing, and to date disappointing (as monotherapies), active immunotherapeutic treatment modalities. One promising strategy to induce priming of tumor-specific T cells is dendritic cell (DC)-based immunotherapy.

Dendritic cells are positioned at the crucial interface between the innate and adaptive immune system as powerful antigen-presenting cells capable of inducing antigen-specific T cell responses (5). Therefore, they are the most frequently used cellular adjuvant in clinical trials. Since the publication of the first DC vaccination trial in melanoma patients in 1995, the promise of DC immunotherapy is underlined by numerous clinical trials, frequently showing survival benefit in comparison to non-DC control groups (6–8). Despite the fact that most DC vaccination trials differ in several vaccine parameters (i.e., site and frequency of injection, nature of the DCs, choice of antigen), DC vaccination as a monotherapy is considered safe and rarely associates with immune-related toxicity. This is in sharp contrast with the use of mAbs or cytokine therapies. Ipilumumab has, for instance, been shown to induce immune-related serious adverse events in up to one-third of treated melanoma patients (1). The FDA approval of Sipuleucel-T (Provenge), an autologous DC-enriched vaccine for hormone-resistant metastatic prostate cancer, in 2010 is really considered as a milestone in the vaccination community (9). After 15 years of extensive clinical research, Sipileucel-T became the first cellular immunotherapy ever that received FDA approval, providing compelling evidence for the substantial socio-economic impact of DC-based immunotherapy. DC vaccinations have most often been applied in patients with melanoma, prostate cancer, high-grade glioma, and renal cell cancer. Although promising objective responses and tumor-specific T cell responses have been observed in all these cancer-types (providing proof-of-principle for DC-based immunotherapy), the clinical success of this treatment is still considered suboptimal (6). This poor clinical efficacy can in part be attributed to the severe tumor-induced immune suppression and the selection of patients with advanced disease status and poor survival prognostics (6, 10–12).

There is a consensus in the field that step-by-step optimization and standardization of the production process of DC vaccines, to obtain a Th1-driven immune response, might enhance their clinical efficacy (13). In this review, we address some recent DC vaccine adaptations that impact DC biology. Combining these novel insights might bring us closer to an ideal DC vaccine product that can trigger potent CTL- and Th1-driven antitumor immunity.

One factor requiring more attention in this production process is the immunogenicity of the dying or dead cancer cells used to load the DCs. It has been shown in multiple preclinical cancer models that the methodology used to prepare the tumor cell cargo can influence the in vivo immunogenic potential of loaded DC vaccines (14–19). Different treatment modalities have been described to enhance the immunogenicity of cancer cells in the context of DC vaccines. These treatments can potentiate antitumor immunity by inducing immune responses against tumor neo-antigens and/or by selectively increasing the exposure/release of particular damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) that can trigger the innate immune system (14, 17–19). The emergence of the concept of immunogenic cell death (ICD) might even further improve the immunogenic potential of DC vaccines. Cancer cells undergoing ICD have been shown to exhibit excellent immunostimulatory capacity owing to the spatiotemporally defined emission of a series of critical DAMPs acting as potent danger signals (20, 21). Thus far, three DAMPs have been attributed a crucial role in the immunogenic potential of nearly all ICD inducers: the surface-exposed “eat me” signal calreticulin (ecto-CRT), the “find me” signal ATP and passively released high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) (21). Moreover, ICD-experiencing cancer cells have been shown in various mouse models to act as very potent Th1-driving anticancer vaccines, already in the absence of any adjuvants (21, 22). The ability to reject tumors in syngeneic mice after vaccination with cancer cells (of the same type) undergoing ICD is a crucial hallmark of ICD, in addition to the molecular DAMP signature (21).

Here, we review the effects of three frequently used immunogenic modalities and four potent ICD inducers on DC biology and their application in DC vaccines in preclinical as well as clinical settings (Tables ​(Tables11 and ​and2).2). Moreover, we discuss the rationale for combining different cell death-inducing regimens to enhance the immunogenic potential of DC vaccines and to ensure the clinical relevance of the vaccine product.

A list of prominent enhancers of immunogenicity and ICD inducers applied in DC vaccine setups and their associations with DAMPs and DC biology.
A list of preclinical tumor models and clinical studies for evaluation of the in vivo potency of DC vaccines loaded with immunogenically killed tumor cells.
The Impact of DC Biology on the Efficacy of DC Vaccines

Over the past years, different DC vaccine parameters have been shown to impact the clinical effectiveness of DC vaccinations. In the next section, we will elaborate on some promising adaptations of the DC preparation protocol.

Given the labor-intensive ex vivo culturing protocol of monocyte-derived DCs and inspired by the results of the Provenge study, several groups are currently exploiting the use of blood-isolated naturally circulating DCs (76–78). In this context, De Vries et al. evaluated the use of antigen-loaded purified plasmacytoid DCs for intranodal injection in melanoma patients (79). This strategy was feasible and induced only very mild side effects. In addition, the overall survival of vaccinated patients was greatly enhanced as compared to historical control patients. However, it still remains to be determined whether this strategy is more efficacious than monocyte-derived DC vaccine approaches (78). By contrast, experiments in the preclinical GL261 high-grade glioma model recently showed that vaccination with tumor antigen-loaded myeloid DCs resulted in more robust Th1 responses and a stronger survival benefit as compared to mice vaccinated with their plasmacytoid counterparts (80).

In view of their strong potential to stimulate cytotoxic T cell responses, several groups are currently exploring the use of Langerhans cell-like DCs as sources for DC vaccines (81–83). These so-called IL-15 DCs can be derived from CD14+monocytes by culturing them with IL-15 (instead of the standard IL-4). Recently, it has been shown that in comparison to IL-4 DCs, these cells have an increased capacity to stimulate antitumor natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity in a contact- and IL-15-dependent manner (84). NK cells are increasingly being recognized as crucial contributors to antitumor immunity, especially in DC vaccination setups (85, 86). Three clinical trials are currently evaluating these Langerhans cell-type DCs in melanoma patients (NCT00700167, NCT 01456104, and NCT01189383).

Targeting cancer stem cells is another promising development, particularly in the setting of glioma (87). Glioma stem cells can foster tumor growth, radio- and chemotherapy-resistance, and local immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment (87, 88). Furthermore, glioma stem cells may express higher levels of tumor-associated antigens and MHC complex molecules as compared to non-stem cells (89, 90). A preclinical study in a rodent orthotopic glioblastoma model has shown that DC vaccines loaded with neuropsheres enriched in cancer stem cells could induce more immunoreactivity and survival benefit as compared to DCs loaded with GL261 cells grown under standard conditions (91). Currently there are four clinical trials ongoing in high-grade glioma patients evaluating this approach (NCT00890032, NCT00846456, NCT01171469, and NCT01567202).

With regard to the DC maturation status of the vaccine product, a phase I/II clinical trial in metastatic melanoma patients has confirmed the superiority of mature antigen-loaded DCs to elicit immunological responses as compared to their immature counterparts (92). This finding was further substantiated in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and recurrent high-grade glioma (93, 94). Hence, DCs need to express potent costimulatory molecules and lymph node homing receptors in order to generate a strong T cell response. In view of this finding, the route of administration is another vaccine parameter that can influence the homing of the injected DCs to the lymph nodes. In the context of prostate cancer and renal cell carcinoma it has been shown that vaccination routes with access to the draining lymph nodes (intradermal/intranodal/intralymphatic/subcutaneous) resulted in better clinical response rates as compared to intravenous injection (93). In melanoma patients, a direct comparison between intradermal vaccination and intranodal vaccination concluded that, although more DCs reached the lymph nodes after intranodal vaccination, the melanoma-specific T cells induced by intradermal vaccination were more functional (95). Furthermore, the frequency of vaccination can also influence the vaccine’s immunogenicity. Our group has shown in a cohort-comparison trial involving relapsed high-grade glioma patients that shortening the interval between the four inducer DC vaccines improved the progression-free survival curves (58, 96).

Another variable that has been systematically studied is the cytokine cocktail that is applied to mature the DCs. The current gold standard cocktail for DC maturation contains TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, and PGE2 (97, 98). Although this cocktail upregulates DC maturation markers and the lymph node homing receptor CCR7, IL-12 production by DCs could not be evoked (97, 98). Nevertheless, IL-12 is a critical Th1-driving cytokine and DC-derived IL-12 has been shown to associate with improved survival in DC vaccinated high-grade glioma and melanoma patients (99, 100). Recently, a novel cytokine cocktail, including TNF-α, IL-1β, poly-I:C, IFN-α, and IFN-γ, was introduced (101, 102). The type 1-polarized DCs obtained with this cocktail produced high levels of IL-12 and could induce strong tumor-antigen-specific CTL responses through enhanced induction of CXCL10 (99). In addition, CD40-ligand (CD40L) stimulation of DCs has been used to mature DCs in clinical trials (100, 103). Binding of CD40 on DCs to CD40L on CD4+ helper T cells licenses DCs and enables them to prime CD8+ effector T cells.

A final major determinant of the vaccine immunogenicity is the choice of antigen to load the DCs. Two main approaches can be applied: loading with selected tumor antigens (tumor-associated antigens or tumor-specific antigens) and loading with whole tumor cell preparations (13). The former strategy enables easier immune monitoring, has a lower risk of inducing auto-immunity, and can provide “off-the-shelf” availability of the antigenic cargo. Whole tumor cell-based DC vaccines, on the other hand, are not HLA-type dependent, have a reduced risk of inducing immune-escape variants, and can elicit immunity against multiple tumor antigens. Meta-analytical data provided by Neller et al. have demonstrated enhanced clinical efficacy in several tumor types of DCs loaded with whole tumor lysate as compared to DCs pulsed with defined tumor antigens (104). This finding was recently also substantiated in high-grade glioma patients, although this study was not set-up to compare survival parameters (105).

Toward a More Immunogenic Tumor Cell Cargo

The majority of clinical trials that apply autologous whole tumor lysate to load DC vaccines report the straightforward use of multiple freeze–thaw cycles to induce primary necrosis of cancer cells (8, 93). Freeze–thaw induced necrosis is, however, considered non-immunogenic and has even been shown to inhibit toll-like receptor (TLR)-induced maturation and function of DCs (16). To this end, many research groups have focused on tackling this roadblock by applying immunogenic modalities to induce cell death.

Immunogenic Treatment Modalities

Tables ​Tables11 and ​and22 list some frequently applied treatment methods to enhance the immunogenic potential of the tumor cell cargo that is used to load DC vaccines in an ICD-independent manner (i.e., these treatments do not meet the molecular and/or cellular determinants of ICD). Immunogenic treatment modalities can positively impact DC biology by inducing particular DAMPs in the dying cancer cells (Table ​(Table1).1). Table ​Table22 lists the preclinical and clinical studies that investigated their in vivo potential. Figure ​Figure11 schematically represents the application and the putative modes of action of these immunogenic enhancers in the setting of DC vaccines.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fimmu-06-00663-g001.jpg

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712296/bin/fimmu-06-00663-g001.jpg

A schematic representation of immunogenic DC vaccines. Cancer cells show enhanced immunogenicity upon treatment with UV irradiation, oxidizing treaments, and heat shock, characterized by the release of particular danger signals and the (increased) production of tumor (neo-)antigens. Upon loading onto DCs, DCs undergo enhanced phagocytosis and antigen uptake and show phenotypic and partial functional maturation. Upon in vivo immunization, these DC vaccines elicit Th1- and cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL)-driven tumor rejection.

Ultraviolet Irradiation ….

Oxidation-Inducing Modalities

In recent years, an increasing number of data were published concerning the ability of oxidative stress to induce oxidation-associate molecular patterns (OAMPs), such as reactive protein carbonyls and peroxidized phospholipids, which can act as DAMPs (28, 29) (Table ​(Table1).1). Protein carbonylation, a surrogate indicator of irreversible protein oxidation, has for instance been shown to improve cancer cell immunogenicity and to facilitate the formation of immunogenic neo-antigens (30, 31).

One prototypical enhancer of oxidation-based immunogenicity is radiotherapy (21,23). In certain tumor types, such as high-grade glioma and melanoma, clinical trials that apply autologous whole tumor lysate to load DC vaccines report the random use of freeze–thaw cycles (to induce necrosis of cancer cells) or a combination of freeze–thaw cycles and subsequent high-dose γ-irradiation (8, 18) (Table ​(Table2).2). However, from the available clinical evidence, it is unclear which of both methodologies has superior immunogenic potential. In light of the oxidation-based immunogenicity that is associated with radiotherapy, we recently demonstrated the superiority of DC vaccines loaded with irradiated freeze–thaw lysate (in comparison to freeze–thaw lysate) in terms of survival advantage in a preclinical high-grade glioma model (18) (Table ​(Table2).2). ….

Heat Shock Treatment

Heat shock is a term that is applied when a cell is subjected to a temperature that is higher than that of the ideal body temperature of the organisms of which the cell is derived. Heat shock can induce apoptosis (41–43°C) or necrosis (>43°C) depending on the temperature that is applied (110). The immunogenicity of heat shock treated cancer cells largely resides within their ability to produce HSPs, such as HSP60, HSP70, and HSP90 (17, 32) (Table ​(Table1).1). …

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fimmu-06-00663-g002.jpg

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=4712296_fimmu-06-00663-g002.jpg

Figure 2

A schematic representation of immunogenic cell death (ICD)-based DC vaccines. ICD causes cancer cells to emit a spatiotemporally defined pattern of danger signals. Upon loading of these ICD-undergoing cancer cells onto DCs, they induce extensive phagocytosis and antigen uptake. Loaded DCs show enhanced phenotypic and functional maturation and immunization with these ICD-based DC vaccines instigates Th1-, Th17-, and cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL)-driven antitumor immunity in vivo.
Inducers of Immunogenic Cell Death

Immunogenic cell death is a cell death regimen that is associated with the spatiotemporally defined emission of immunogenic DAMPs that can trigger the immune system (20, 21, 113). ICD has been found to depend on the concomitant induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and activation of endoplasmatic reticulum (ER) stress (111). Besides the three DAMPs that are most crucial for ICD (ecto-CRT, ATP, and HMGB1), other DAMPs such as surface-exposed or released HSPs (notably HSP70 and HSP90) have also been shown to contribute to the immunogenic capacity of ICD inducers (20, 21). The binding of these DAMPs to their respective immune receptors (CD91 for HSPs/CRT, P2RX7/P2RY2 for ATP, and TLR2/4 for HMGB1/HSP70) leads to the recruitment and/or activation of innate immune cells and facilitates the uptake of tumor antigens by antigen-presenting cells and their cross-presentation to T cells eventually leading to IL-1β-, IL-17-, and IFN-γ-dependent tumor eradiation (22). This in vivo tumor rejecting capacity induced by dying cancer cells in the absence of any adjuvant, is considered as a prerequisite for an agent to be termed an ICD inducer. …

Although the list of ICD inducers is constantly growing (113), only few of these immunogenic modalities have been tested in order to generate an immunogenic tumor cell cargo to load DC vaccines (Tables ​(Tables11 and ​and2).2). Figure ​Figure22 schematically represents the preparation of ICD-based DC vaccines and their putative modes of action.

Radiotherapy

Ionizing X-ray or γ-ray irradiation exerts its anticancer effect predominantly via its capacity to induce DNA double-strand breaks leading to intrinsic cancer cell apoptosis (114). The idea that radiotherapy could also impact the immune system was derived from the observation that radiotherapy could induce T-cell-mediated delay of tumor growth in a non-irradiated lesion (115). This abscopal (ab-scopus, away from the target) effect of radiotherapy was later explained by the ICD-inducing capacity (116). Together with anthracyclines, γ-irradiation was one of the first treatment modalities identified to induce ICD. …

Shikonin

The phytochemical shikonin, a major component of Chinese herbal medicine, is known to inhibit proteasome activity. It serves multiple biological roles and can be applied as an antibacterial, antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer treatment. …

High-hydrostatic pressure

High-hydrostatic pressure (HHP) is an established method to sterilize pharmaceuticals, human transplants, and food. HHP between 100 and 250 megapascal (MPa) has been shown to induce apoptosis of murine and human (cancer) cells (121–123). While DNA damage does not seem to be induced by HHP <1000 MPa, HHP can inhibit enzymatic functions and the synthesis of cellular proteins (122). Increased ROS production was detected in HHP-treated cancer cell lines and ER stress was evidenced by the rapid phosphorylation of eIF2α (42).  …

Oncolytic Viruses

Oncolytic viruses are self-replicating, tumor selective virus strains that can directly lyse tumor cells. Over the past few years, a new oncolytic paradigm has risen; entailing that, rather than utilizing oncolytic viruses solely for direct tumor eradication, the cell death they induce should be accompanied by the elicitation of antitumor immune responses to maximize their therapeutic efficacy (128). One way in which these oncolytic viruses can fulfill this oncolytic paradigm is by inducing ICD (128).

Thus far, three oncolytic virus strains can meet the molecular requirements of ICD; coxsackievirus B3 (CVB3), oncolytic adenovirus and Newcastle disease virus (NDV) (Table ​(Table1)1) (113). Infection of tumor cells with these viruses causes the production of viral envelop proteins that induce ER stress by overloading the ER. Hence, all three virus strains can be considered type II ICD inducers (113). …

Photodynamic therapy

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an established, minimally invasive anticancer treatment modality. It has a two-step mode of action involving the selective uptake of a photosensitizer by the tumor tissue, followed by its activation by light of a specific wavelength. This activation results in the photochemical production of ROS in the presence of oxygen (129–131). One attractive feature of PDT is that the ROS-based oxidative stress originates in the particular subcellular location where the photosensitizer tends to accumulate, ultimately leading to the destruction of the tumor cell (132). …

Combinatorial Regimens

In DC vaccine settings, cancer cells are often not killed by a single treatment strategy but rather by a combination of treatments. In some cases, the underlying rationale lies within the additive or even synergistic value of combining several moderately immunogenic modalities. The combination of radiotherapy and heat shock has, for instance, been shown to induce higher levels of HSP70 in B16 melanoma cells than either therapy alone (16). In addition, a combination therapy consisting of heat shock, γ-irradiation, and UV irradiation has been shown to induce higher levels of ecto-CRT, ecto-HSP90, HMGB1, and ATP in comparison to either therapy alone or doxorubicin, a well-recognized inducer of ICD (57). ….

Triggering antitumor immune responses is an absolute requirement to tackle metastatic and diffusely infiltrating cancer cells that are resistant to standard-of-care therapeutic regimens. ICD-inducing modalities, such as PDT and radiotherapy, have been shown to be able to act as in situ vaccines capable of inducing immune responses that caused regression of distal untreated tumors. Exploiting these ICD inducers and other immunogenic modalities to obtain a highly immunogenic antigenic tumor cell cargo for loading DC vaccines is a highly promising application. In case of the two prominent ICD inducers, Hyp-PDT and HHP, preclinical studies evaluating this relatively new approach are underway and HHP-based DC vaccines are already undergoing clinical testing. In the preclinical testing phase, more attention should be paid to some clinically driven considerations. First, one should consider the requirement of 100% mortality of the tumor cells before in vivo application. A second consideration from clinical practice (especially in multi-center clinical trials) is the fact that most tumor specimens arrive in the lab in a frozen state. This implies that a significant number of cells have already undergone non-immunogenic necrosis before the experimental cell killing strategies are applied. ….

 

Read Full Post »

Novaseek Research Wins Pistoia Alliance President’s Startup Challenge 2015

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Novaseek Research Wins Pistoia Alliance President’s Startup Challenge 2015

 

Boston, MA, February 17, 2016 – Novaseek Research today announced that it is a winner of the inaugural 2015 Pistoia Alliance President’s Startup Challenge.

The Pistoia Alliance is a global, not-for-profit alliance of life science companies, vendors, publishers, and academic groups that work together to lower barriers to innovation in R&D.  The Startup Challenge 2015 panel of expert judges, drawn from the Pistoia Alliance’s membership, evaluated more than 30 start-up companies from around the world who are developing new ideas to lower the barriers to innovation in life sciences R&D.

Dr. Kate Torchilin, CEO of Novaseek Research said: “Novaseek is honored to receive this award. Going through the rigorous process of judging and working with our mentor at Pistoia allowed us to substantially enhance our Clinical Data Network for Research (CDNR) platform, the industry’s first comprehensive platform for accessing clinical data and human biospecimens that are essential for understanding diseases and developing medical advances.” 

Novaseek’s CDNR platform enables biomedical researchers to realize the power of the electronic medical record (EMR), opening access to clinical data from consenting patients and thousands of biospecimens flowing through hospital laboratories each day.   

CNDR features powerful real-time analytics for project planning and timing of biospecimen fulfillment. It also enables researchers to specify criteria such as lab values, gender, diagnosis and medication history, and then match these search criteria to biospecimens in the hospitals. Novaseek and its healthcare partners use IRB-approved protocols and patient consents to ensure the ethical conduct of research and respect for all participants.

 

About the Pistoia Alliance

The Pistoia Alliance is a global, not-for-profit alliance of life science companies, vendors, publishers, and academic groups that work together to lower barriers to innovation in R&D. Our projects transform R&D innovation through pre-competitive collaboration. We bring together the key constituents to identify the root causes that lead to R&D inefficiencies. We develop best practices and technology pilots to overcome common obstacles. Our members collaborate as equals on open projects that generate significant value for the worldwide life sciences community. For further information about the Pistoia Alliance please visit our website: http://www.pistoiaalliance.org/

About the Pistoia Alliance President’s Startup Challenge 2015

The Pistoia Alliance Startup Challenge is a global competition for small to medium enterprises developing new technologies and services that will benefit the life sciences industry. Entries must support the Pistoia Alliance’s mission to lower barriers to innovation in life sciences R&D. The finalists and winners will each receive a cash prize along with mentorship from industry experts drawn from the Pistoia Alliance’s membership. More information is available at: http://www.pistoiaalliance.org/startup2015

 

About Novaseek

Novaseek is transforming how biomedical researchers access clinical data and human biospecimens to accelerate R&D. The Novaseek Clinical Data Network for Research (CDNR) is the industry’s first comprehensive platform enabling researchers to access real-world, real-time clinical data and large quantities of high quality biospecimens – that is essential for understanding disease and developing medical advances – all in compliance with HIPAA.  Incorporating Novaseek’s CDNR platform across all phases of research and development helps industry and academia generate powerful new insights, increases R&D productivity and decreases risk in the pursuit of new cures. The CDNR platform was developed by experts in drug development, hospital operations and health IT to create a win-win for industry, academia, healthcare providers and patients. For more information, please visit www.novaseekresearch.com

 

SOURCE

From: Constantine <constantine@basepairgroup.com>

Reply-To: <constantine@basepairgroup.com>

Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:27 AM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: Novaseek Research Wins Pistoia Alliance President’s Startup Challenge 2015

Read Full Post »

Thymus vs Bone Marrow, Two Cell Types in Human Immunology: B- and T-cell differences

Reporter: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Differences Between B-Cells and T-Cells

http://www.microbiologyinfo.com/differences-between-b-cells-and-t-cells/

Aryal Sagar

Although mature lymphocytes all look pretty much alike, they are extraordinarily diverse in their functions. The most abundant lymphocytes are:

B lymphocytes (often simply called B cells) and
T lymphocytes (likewise called T cells)

Differences between B-Cells and T-Cells

http://www.microbiologyinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Differences-between-B-Cells-and-T-Cells.jpg

S.N.

Properties

B-Cells

T-Cells

1 Name B lymphocytes T lymphocytes
2 Origin Bone Marrow Thymus
3 Position Outside Lymph Node Interior of Lymph Node
4 Membranereceptor BCR (= immunoglobulin) for antigen TCR for antigen
5 Connections B-cells can connect to antigens right on the surface of the invading virus or bacteria. T-cells can only connect to virus antigens on the outside of infected cells.
6 Tissue Distribution Germinal centres of lymph nodes, spleen, gut, respiratory tract; also subcapsular and medullary cords of lymph nodes Parafollicular areas of cortex innodes, periarteriolar in spleen
7 Life Span Life span is short Life span is long
8 Surface Antibodies Surface Antibodies present Absence of surface antibodies
9 Secretion They secrete antibodies They secrete Lymphokines
10 Function В-cells form humoral or antibody-mediated immune system (AMI). T-cells form cell-mediated immune system (CMI).
11 Blood 20% of lymphocytes 80% of lymphocytes; CD4 > CD8
12 Formation They form plasma cells and memory cells. They form killer, helper and suppressor cells.
13 Movement to Infection Site Plasma cells do not move to the site of infection. Lymphoblasts move to the site of infection.
14 Function Plasma cells do not react against transplants and cancer cells. Killer cells react against transplants and cancer cells.
15 Function Plasma cells have no inhibitory effect on immune system. Suppressor cells inhibit immune system.
16 Function They defend against viruses and bacteria that enter the blood and lymph. They defend against pathogens including protists and fungi that enter the cells.
Differences Between B-Cells and T-Cells

Read Full Post »

Circulating Protein Breast Carcinoma Biomarkers

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Circulating Protein Biomarkers a Boon to Breast Cancer Management

Immunoassays Are the Gold Standard for Measuring Soluble Breast-Cancer-Related Proteins

Mary F. Lopez, Ph.D

http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/circulating-protein-biomarkers-a-boon-to-breast-cancer-management/77900557/

 

Circulating Protein Biomarkers a Boon to Breast Cancer Management

http://www.genengnews.com/media/images/AnalysisAndInsight/Nov4_2015_MaryLopez_HER2Oncoprotein2272426032.jpg

HER-2 is an oncogene and a member of the human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER/EGFR/ERBB) family. Amplification or overexpression of HER-2 plays an important role in the development and progression of certain aggressive types of breast cancer.

 

Breast cancer patients often display elevated levels of proteins in plasma or serum, and many of these proteins correlate to active or recurrent disease, metastasis, prognosis, and therapeutic response. Several of these markers have demonstrated clinical utility, particularly in the area of monitoring disease recurrence after or during therapeutic treatment in advanced disease.

The application of immunoassays to monitor levels of breast-cancer-related proteins in blood or serum is complementary to other diagnostics such as imaging and can be a valuable part of the routine management of disease. The availability of a group of easily applied blood tests is a convenient and powerful addition to the arsenal of technologies available to physicians for patient management. Immunoassays are available for serum-borne breast-cancer-related markers such as cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 (TIMP-1), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)—all of which are discussed in this article.

Clinical Utility Considered by Multiple Studies 

While essential for diagnosis and typing, tissue testing during long-term breast cancer management is impractical, costly, and painful for patients. A growing number of studies support serum-based immunoassay testing to monitor drug response, disease progression, and potential for metastases.

In 2012, Tsai et al.1 studied serum levels of HER2 and TIMP-1 in 185 breast cancer patients in Taiwan. They concluded that TIMP-1 was significantly associated with serum HER2-positive status in circulation, as well as poorer disease-free survival—suggesting that monitoring both of these biomarkers may be beneficial.

In the same year, Kontani et al.2 reported that serum HER2 is a useful biomarker not only for detecting breast cancer recurrence but also for predicting tumor responses to trastuzumab. In 2014, Shao et al.3 found that elevated serum HER2 levels were significantly associated with short-term response to trastuzumab treatment. The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients with low levels of serum HER2. Furthermore, they found that over time patients with remaining low serum HER2 levels or those who achieved low serum HER2 levels after treatment had significantly longer progression-free survival than those whose levels remained high or converted from low to high.

In 2015, Di Gioia et al.4 reported that they had investigated the combination of CEA, CA 15-3, and serum HER2 in the pretherapeutic serum of 241 patients as biomarkers for prognosis in early breast cancer. Their retrospective analysis confirmed that serum HER-2 and CA15-3 (but not CEA) were independent and better prognostic tools than HER-2 in tissue. However, they concluded that prospective validation is necessary to confirm usefulness in routine clinical practice.

In a review published in 2015, Ravelli et al.5 discussed the advantages, drawbacks, and new insights with respect to measuring circulating breast-cancer-related biomarkers with immunoassays as compared to standard tissue-based biopsies. They suggested that a reliable panel of circulating cancer biomarkers would be helpful for the following tasks:

  1. Screening and diagnostic procedures
  2. Predicting prognosis
  3. Selecting therapeutic options, including experimental ones
  4. Detecting a lack of efficacy of an ongoing therapy and predicting side-effects
  5. Identifying recurrence

In this review, the authors emphasized “classic” markers such as CA 15-3, CEA, and serum HER2. With respect to CA 15-3 and CEA, the authors noted that they might be most useful in combination. “[More] reliable prediction power have been obtained with the combination of the two biomarkers, whereas when measured singularly, both sensitivity and specificity values were drastically decreased,” the authors wrote. “As a result, the association of the two markers may be a useful independent tool in the follow-up of [breast cancer] patients.”

In their discussion of HER2, the researchers pointed out that increased serum HER2 levels have been clearly associated with the tissue HER2 status, the presence and number of metastases, and the levels of CA 15-3 and CEA.

Utility Strongly Suggested by a Large Study  

The review cited a 2014 study that reported how 2,862 primary breast cancer patients had been monitored to demonstrate the correlation between serum HER2 and tissue HER2 overexpression.6This study showed that 15% of tissue-HER2-positive patients also had increased serum HER2 levels and that there was a linear correlation with the increased aggressiveness of tumors. Multivariate analysis confirmed that increased serum HER2 is an independent prognostic factor that can be clinically useful, particularly in patients with tissue-HER2-positive tumors.

The authors of the study concluded that measuring serum HER2 could help oncologists monitor patient response to trastuzumab in the absence of tissue HER2. They added that further clinical validation would be worthwhile.

Summary

Basic immunoassay technology has been in place since the 1950s and has become the gold standard for clinical protein measurement due to high sensitivity and selectivity.7 Growing evidence suggests that these reliable, robust tests can provide valuable insights for physicians managing breast cancer treatment.

 

Read Full Post »

Diagnostic Revelations

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

New Liquid Biopsy Test Uses Platelet RNA as Cancer Diagnostic

  • Click Image To Enlarge +
    Using platelet RNA, scientists have been able to detect the presence of cancer and pinpoint its primary location. [Best et al., 2015, Cancer Cell 28, 1–11]

    The age of fast, accurate, and noninvasive cancer screening is rapidly becoming reality. The power of next-generation sequencing has allowed molecular diagnostic techniques to sample small amounts of blood for the genetic hallmarks of tumorigenesis. These liquid biopsy procedures, as they have been dubbed, typically search for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) that has made its way into the systemic circulation from tumor cells that have died or enrich for circulating tumor cells (CTCs) that have broken off from the primary cancer site.

    Now, a team of researchers lead by scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), have developed a new diagnostic test that analyzes the tumor RNA picked up in circulating platelets. The investigators believe this new method could become even more useful than other molecular technologies for diagnosing cancer since it can also determine the primary location of the tumor and provide insight to potential therapeutic approaches.

    “By combining next-generation-sequencing gene expression profiles of platelet RNA with computational algorithms we developed, we were able to detect the presence of cancer with 96 percent accuracy,” explains co-senior author Bakhos Tannous, Ph.D., associate professor Harvard Medical School and associate neuroscientist at MGH. “Platelet RNA signatures also provide valuable information on the type of tumor present in the body and can guide the selection of the most optimal treatment for individual patients.

    The findings from this study were published recently in Cancer Cell through an article entitled “RNA-Seq of Tumor-Educated Platelets Enables Blood-Based Pan-Cancer, Multiclass, and Molecular Pathway Cancer Diagnostics.”

    In the current study the research team describes finding that the RNA profiles of tumor-educated platelets (TEPs)—those that have taken up molecules shed by tumors—can distinguish among blood samples of healthy individuals and those of patients with six types of cancer, determine the location of the primary tumor, and identify tumors carrying mutations that can guide therapeutic decision-making.

    Over the past several years, the scientific literature has shown that in addition to their role in promoting blood clotting, platelets take up protein and RNA molecules from tumors, possibly playing a role in tumor growth and metastasis. Dr. Tannous and his colleagues set out to determine whether tumor RNA carried in platelets could be used to diagnose and classify common types of cancer.

    The investigators isolated platelets from blood samples taken from 55 healthy donors, 39 individual with early-stage cancer and 189 patients with advanced, metastatic cancer. Among those patients with cancer, they were diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, glioblastoma, pancreatic cancer, hepatobiliary cancer, or breast cancer.

    The comparison of RNA profiles from the healthy donors to those of the cancer patients identified increased levels of approximately 1,500 RNA molecules—many involved in cancer-associated processes—and a reduction of almost 800 in samples from cancer patients. Using their novel algorithm, the MGH group was able to examine close to 1,000 RNAs from almost 300 individuals with 96% accuracy for the presence of cancer.

    Additionally, the platelet mRNA profiles were able to identify the particular type of cancer within each patient participant, including distinguishing among three types of gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma: colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer. Platelets from patients with tumors driven by mutations in KRAS or EGFR proteins—biomarkers that can guide the use of drugs targeting those mutations—proved to have unique RNA profiles as well.

    The researchers were excited by their findings and emphasize the uniqueness of their approach as currently utilized liquid biopsy approaches have been unable to diagnose cancer while simultaneously pinpointing the location of the primary tumor.

    “We observed that the mRNA profiles of tumor-educated platelets have the sensitivity and specificity to detect cancer, even in early, non-metastasized tumors,” noted Dr. Tannous. “We are further assessing the potential of TEP-based screening for therapeutic decision making and also investigating how non-cancerous diseases may further influence the RNA repertoire of TEPs.”

  • RNA-Seq of Tumor-Educated Platelets Enables Blood-Based Pan-Cancer, Multiclass, and Molecular Pathway Cancer Diagnostics

Myron G. Best Nik Sol, Jihane Tannous, Bart A. Westerman, François Rustenburg, Pepijn Schellen, Heleen Verschueren, Edward Post, Jan Koster, Bauke Ylstra, Irsan Kooi, et al.
Highlights

•Tumors “educate” platelets (TEPs) by altering the platelet RNA profile

•TEPs provide a RNA biosource for pan-cancer, multiclass, and companion diagnostics

•TEP-based liquid biopsies may guide clinical diagnostics and therapy selection

•A total of 100–500 pg of total platelet RNA is sufficient for TEP-based diagnostics

mRNA Profiles of Tumor-Educated Platelets Are Distinct from Platelets of Healthy Individuals

Summary

Tumor-educated blood platelets (TEPs) are implicated as central players in the systemic and local responses to tumor growth, thereby altering their RNA profile. We determined the diagnostic potential of TEPs by mRNA sequencing of 283 platelet samples. We distinguished 228 patients with localized and metastasized tumors from 55 healthy individuals with 96% accuracy. Across six different tumor types, the location of the primary tumor was correctly identified with 71% accuracy. Also, MET or HER2-positive, and mutant KRAS, EGFR, orPIK3CA tumors were accurately distinguished using surrogate TEP mRNA profiles. Our results indicate that blood platelets provide a valuable platform for pan-cancer, multiclass cancer, and companion diagnostics, possibly enabling clinical advances in blood-based “liquid biopsies”.

Figure thumbnail fx1

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2039645414/2053235278/fx1.jpg

Significance

Blood-based “liquid biopsies” provide a means for minimally invasive molecular diagnostics, overcoming limitations of tissue acquisition. Early detection of cancer, clinical cancer diagnostics, and companion diagnostics are regarded as important applications of liquid biopsies. Here, we report that mRNA profiles of tumor-educated blood platelets (TEPs) enable for pan-cancer, multiclass cancer, and companion diagnostics in both localized and metastasized cancer patients. The ability of TEPs to pinpoint the location of the primary tumor advances the use of liquid biopsies for cancer diagnostics. The results of this proof-of-principle study indicate that blood platelets are a potential all-in-one platform for blood-based cancer diagnostics, using the equivalent of one drop of blood.

Introduction

Cancer is primarily diagnosed by clinical presentation, radiology, biochemical tests, and pathological analysis of tumor tissue, increasingly supported by molecular diagnostic tests. Molecular profiling of tumor tissue samples has emerged as a potential cancer classifying method (Akbani et al., 2014, Golub et al., 1999, Han et al., 2014, Hoadley et al., 2014, Kandoth et al., 2013,Ramaswamy et al., 2001, Su et al., 2001). In order to overcome limitations of tissue acquisition, the use of blood-based liquid biopsies has been suggested (Alix-Panabières et al., 2012, Crowley et al., 2013, Haber and Velculescu, 2014). Several blood-based biosources are currently being evaluated as liquid biopsies, including plasma DNA (Bettegowda et al., 2014, Chan et al., 2013, Diehl et al., 2008, Murtaza et al., 2013, Newman et al., 2014, Thierry et al., 2014) and circulating tumor cells (Bidard et al., 2014, Dawson et al., 2013, Maheswaran et al., 2008, Rack et al., 2014). So far, implementation of liquid biopsies for early detection of cancer has been hampered by non-specificity of these biosources to pinpoint the nature of the primary tumor (Alix-Panabières and Pantel, 2014,Bettegowda et al., 2014).

It has been reported that tumor-educated platelets (TEPs) may enable blood-based cancer diagnostics (Calverley et al., 2010, McAllister and Weinberg, 2014,Nilsson et al., 2011). Blood platelets—the second most-abundant cell type in peripheral blood—are circulating anucleated cell fragments that originate from megakaryocytes in bone marrow and are traditionally known for their role in hemostasis and initiation of wound healing (George, 2000, Leslie, 2010). More recently, platelets have emerged as central players in the systemic and local responses to tumor growth. Confrontation of platelets with tumor cells via transfer of tumor-associated biomolecules (“education”) is an emerging concept and results in the sequestration of such biomolecules (Klement et al., 2009,Kuznetsov et al., 2012, McAllister and Weinberg, 2014, Nilsson et al., 2011,Quail and Joyce, 2013). Moreover, external stimuli, such as activation of platelet surface receptors and lipopolysaccharide-mediated platelet activation (Denis et al., 2005, Rondina et al., 2011), induce specific splicing of pre-mRNAs in circulating platelets (Power et al., 2009, Rowley et al., 2011, Schubert et al., 2014). Platelets may also undergo queue-specific splice events in response to signals released by cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment—such as stromal and immune cells. The combination of specific splice events in response to external signals and the capacity of platelets to directly ingest (spliced) circulating mRNA can provide TEPs with a highly dynamic mRNA repertoire, with potential applicability to cancer diagnostics (Calverley et al., 2010, Nilsson et al., 2011) (Figure 1A). In this study, we characterize the platelet mRNA profiles of various cancer patients and healthy donors and investigate their potential for TEP-based pan-cancer, multiclass cancer, and companion diagnostics.

  
Results

We prospectively collected and isolated blood platelets from healthy donors (n = 55) and both treated and untreated patients with early, localized (n = 39) or advanced, metastatic cancer (n = 189) diagnosed by clinical presentation and pathological analysis of tumor tissue supported by molecular diagnostics tests. The patient cohort included six tumor types, i.e., non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC, n = 60), colorectal cancer (CRC, n = 41), glioblastoma (GBM, n = 39), pancreatic cancer (PAAD, n = 35), hepatobiliary cancer (HBC, n = 14), and breast cancer (BrCa, n = 39) (Figure 1B; Table 1; Table S1). The cohort of healthy donors covered a wide range of ages (21–64 years old, Table 1).

Table 1Summary of Patient Characteristics
PATIENT GROUP TOTAL (N) GENDER M (%)A AGE (SD)B METASTASIS (%) MUTATION PRESENCE (%)
TRAINING VALIDATION TRAINING VALIDATION TRAINING VALIDATION TRAINING VALIDATION TRAINING VALIDATION
HD 39 16 21 (54) 6 (38) 41 (13) 38 (16) – – – – –
GBM 23 16 18 (78) 10 (63) 59 (16) 62 (14) 0 (0) 0 (0) – – –
NSCLC 36 24 14 (39) 14 (58) 60 (11) 59 (12) 33 (92) 23 (96) KRAS 15 (42) 11 (46)
EGFR 14 (39) 7 (29)
MET-overexpression 5 (14) 3 (13)
CRC 25 16 13 (52) 9 (56) 59 (13) 63 (16) 20 (80) 15 (94) KRAS 7 (28) 8 (50)
PAAD 21 14 12 (57) 7 (50) 66 (9) 66 (10) 15 (71) 9 (64) KRAS 13 (62) 9 (64)
BrCa 23 16 0 (0) 0 (0) 59 (11) 59 (11) 16 (70) 9 (56) HER2+ 7 (30) 5 (31)
PIK3CA 6 (26) 2 (13)
triple negative 5 (22) 3 (19)
HBC 8 6 6 (75) 2 (33) 68 (13) 62 (16) 6 (75) 4 (67) KRAS 3 (38) 1 (17)

HD, healthy donors; GBM, glioblastoma; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; CRC, colorectal cancer; PAAD, pancreatic cancer; BrCa, breast cancer; HBC, hepatobiliary cancer. See also Table S1.

aIndicated are number of male individuals.
bIndicated is mean age in years.

Platelet purity was confirmed by morphological analysis of randomly selected and freshly isolated platelet samples (contamination is 1 to 5 nucleated cells per 10 million platelets, see Supplemental Experimental Procedures), and platelet RNA was isolated and evaluated for quality and quantity (Figure S1A). A total of 100–500 pg of platelet total RNA (the equivalent of purified platelets in less than one drop of blood) was used for SMARTer mRNA amplification and sequencing (Ramsköld et al., 2012) (Figures 1C and S1A). Platelet RNA sequencing yielded a mean read count of ∼22 million reads per sample. After selection of intron-spanning (spliced) RNA reads and exclusion of genes with low coverage (seeSupplemental Experimental Procedures), we detected in platelets of healthy donors (n = 55) and localized and metastasized cancer patients (n = 228) 5,003 different protein coding and non-coding RNAs that were used for subsequent analyses. The obtained platelet RNA profiles correlated with previously reported mRNA profiles of platelets (Bray et al., 2013, Kissopoulou et al., 2013, Rowley et al., 2011, Simon et al., 2014) and megakaryocytes (Chen et al., 2014) and not with various non-related blood cell mRNA profiles (Hrdlickova et al., 2014) (Figure S1B). Furthermore, DAVID Gene Ontology (GO) analysis revealed that the detected RNAs are strongly enriched for transcripts associated with blood platelets (false discovery rate [FDR] < 10−126).

Among the 5,003 RNAs, we identified known platelet markers, such as B2M, PPBP, TMSB4X, PF4, and several long non-coding RNAs (e.g., MALAT1). A total of 1,453 out of 5,003 mRNAs were increased and 793 out of 5,003 mRNAs were decreased in TEPs as compared to platelet samples of healthy donors (FDR < 0.001), while presenting a strong correlation between these platelet mRNA profiles (r = 0.90, Pearson correlation) (Figure 1D). Unsupervised hierarchical clustering based on the differentially detected platelet mRNAs distinguished two sample groups with minor overlap (Figure 1E; Table S2). DAVID GO analysis revealed that the increased TEP mRNAs were enriched for biological processes such as vesicle-mediated transport and the cytoskeletal protein binding while decreased mRNAs were strongly involved in RNA processing and splicing (Table S3). A correlative analysis of gene set enrichment (CAGE) GO methodology, in which 3,875 curated gene sets of the GSEA database were correlated to TEP profiles (see Experimental Procedures), demonstrated significant correlation of TEP mRNA profiles with cancer tissue signatures, histone deacetylases regulation, and platelets (Table 2). The levels of 20 non-protein coding RNAs were altered in TEPs as compared to platelets from healthy individuals and these show a tumor type-associated RNA profile (Figure S1C).

Thumbnail image of Figure 1. Opens large image

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2039645414/2053235279/gr1.jpg

Tumor-Educated Platelet mRNA Profiling for Pan-Cancer Diagnostics

(A) Schematic overview of tumor-educated platelets (TEPs) as biosource for liquid biopsies.

(B) Number of platelet samples of healthy donors and patients with different types of cancer.

(C) TEP mRNA sequencing (mRNA-seq) workflow, as starting from 6 ml EDTA-coated tubes, to platelet isolation, mRNA amplification, and sequencing.

(D) Correlation plot of mRNAs detected in healthy donor (HD) platelets and cancer patients’ TEPs, including highlighted increased (red) and decreased (blue) TEP mRNAs.

(E) Heatmap of unsupervised clustering of platelet mRNA profiles of healthy donors (red) and patients with cancer (gray).

(F) Cross-table of pan-cancer SVM/LOOCV diagnostics of healthy donor subjects and patients with cancer in training cohort (n = 175). Indicated are sample numbers and detection rates in percentages.

(G) Performance of pan-cancer SVM algorithm in validation cohort (n = 108). Indicated are sample numbers and detection rates in percentages.

(H) ROC-curve of SVM diagnostics of training (red), validation (blue) cohort, and random classifiers, indicating the classification accuracies obtained by chance of the training and validation cohort (gray).

(I) Total accuracy ratios of SVM classification in five subgroups, including corresponding predictive strengths. Genes, number of mRNAs included in training of the SVM algorithm.

See also Figure S1 and Tables S1, S2, S3, and S4.

Table 2Pan-Cancer CAGE Gene Ontology
TOP 25 GO CORRELATIONS
# LOWESTA HIGHESTA
DOWN
Translation 10 −0.865 −0.890
Immune, T cell 5 −0.853 −0.883
Cancer-associated 2 −0.875 −0.887
Viral replication 2 −0.875 −0.878
IL-signaling 2 −0.869 −0.874
RNA processing 1 −0.886
Ago2-Dicer-silencing 1 −0.882
Protein metabolism 1 −0.879
Receptor processing 1 −0.869
UP
Cancer-associated 6 −0.783 −0.906
Infection 3 −0.798 −0.853
HDAC 3 −0.795 −0.852
Platelet 3 −0.837 −0.906
Cytoskeleton 2 −0.801 −0.886
Hypoxia 2 −0.763 −0.937
Protease 1 −0.854
Immunodeficiency 1 −0.812
Differentiation 1 −0.810
Immune differentiation 1 −0.801
Methylation 1 −0.778
Metabolism 1 −0.768

Top-ranking correlations of platelet-mRNA profiles with 3,875 Broad Institute curated gene sets. CAGE, Correlative Analysis of Gene Set Enrichment; GO, gene ontology; #, number of hits per annotation; IL, interleukin; HDAC, histone deacetylase.

aIndicated are lowest and highest correlations per annotation.

Next, we determined the diagnostic accuracy of TEP-based pan-cancer classification in the training cohort (n = 175), employing a leave-one-out cross-validation support vector machine algorithm (SVM/LOOCV, see Experimental Procedures; Figures S1D and S1E), previously used to classify primary and metastatic tumor tissues (Ramaswamy et al., 2001, Su et al., 2001, Vapnik, 1998, Yeang et al., 2001). Briefly, the SVM algorithm (blindly) classifies each individual sample as cancer or healthy by comparison to all other samples (175 − 1) and was performed 175 times to classify and cross validate all individuals samples. The algorithms we developed use a limited number of different spliced RNAs for sample classification. To determine the specific input gene lists for the classifying algorithms we performed ANOVA testing for differences (as implemented in the R-package edgeR), yielding classifier-specific gene lists (Table S4). For the specific algorithm of the pan-cancer TEP-based classifier test we selected 1,072 RNAs (Table S4) for the n = 175 training cohort, yielding a sensitivity of 96%, a specificity of 92%, and an accuracy of 95% (Figure 1F). Subsequent validation using a separate validation cohort (n = 108), not involved in input gene list selection and training of the algorithm, yielded a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 94%, and an accuracy of 96% (Figure 1G), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.986 to detect cancer (Figure 1H) and high predictive strength (Figure 1I). In contrast, random classifiers, as determined by multiple rounds of randomly shuffling class labels (permutation) during the SVM training process (see Experimental Procedures), had no predictive power (mean overall accuracy: 78%, SD ± 0.3%, p < 0.01), thereby showing, albeit an unbalanced representation of both groups in the study cohort, specificity of our procedure. A total of 100 times random class-proportional subsampling of the entire dataset in a training and validation set (ratio 60:40) yielded similar accuracy rates (mean overall accuracy: 96%, SD: ± 2%), confirming reproducible classification accuracy in this dataset. Of note, all 39 patients with localized tumors and 33 of the 39 patients with primary tumors in the CNS were correctly classified as cancer patients (Figure 1I). Visualization of 22 genes previously identified at differential RNA levels in platelets of patients with various non-cancerous diseases (Gnatenko et al., 2010, Healy et al., 2006, Lood et al., 2010,Raghavachari et al., 2007), revealed mixed levels in our TEP dataset (Figure S1F), suggesting that the platelet RNA repertoire in patients with non-cancerous disease is distinct from patients with cancer.

Tumor-Specific Educational Program of Blood Platelets Allows for Multiclass Cancer Diagnostics

In addition to the pan-cancer diagnosis, the TEP mRNA profiles also distinguished healthy donors and patients with specific types of cancer, as demonstrated by the unsupervised hierarchical clustering of differential platelet mRNA levels of healthy donors and all six individual tumor types, i.e., NSCLC, CRC, GBM, PAAD, BrCa, and HBC (Figures 2A, all p < 0.0001, Fisher’s exact test, and S2A; Table S5), and this resulted in tumor-specific gene lists that were used as input for training and validation of the tumor-specific algorithms (Table S4). For the unsupervised clustering of the all-female group of BrCa patients, male healthy donors were excluded to avoid sample bias due to gender-specific platelet mRNA profiles (Figure S2B). SVM-based classification of all individual tumor classes with healthy donors resulted in clear distinction of both groups in both the training and validation cohort, with high sensitivity and specificity, and 38/39 (97%) cancer patients with localized disease were classified correctly (Figures 2B and S2C). CAGE GO analysis showed that biological processes differed between TEPs of individual tumor types, suggestive of tumor-specific “educational” programs (Table S6). We did not detect sufficient differences in mRNA levels to discriminate patients with non-metastasized from patients with metastasized tumors, suggesting that the altered platelet profile is predominantly influenced by the molecular tumor type and, to a lesser extent, by tumor progression and metastases.

 We next determined whether we could discriminate three different types of adenocarcinomas in the gastro-intestinal tract by analysis of the TEP-profiles, i.e., CRC, PAAD, and HBC. We developed a CRC/PAAD/HBC algorithm that correctly classified the mixed TEP samples (n = 90) with an overall accuracy of 76% (mean overall accuracy random classifiers: 42%, SD: ± 5%, p < 0.01,Figure 2C). In order to determine whether the TEP mRNA profiles allowed for multiclass cancer diagnosis across all tumor types and healthy donors, we extended the SVM/LOOCV classification test using a combination of algorithms that classified each individual sample of the training cohort (n = 175) as healthy donor or one of six tumor types (Figures S2D and S2E). The results of the multiclass cancer diagnostics test resulted in an average accuracy of 71% (mean overall accuracy random classifiers: 19%, SD: ± 2%, p < 0.01,Figure 2D), demonstrating significant multiclass cancer discriminative power in the platelet mRNA profiles. The classification capacity of the multiclass SVM-based classifier was confirmed in the validation cohort of 108 samples, with an overall accuracy of 71% (Figure 2E). An overall accuracy of 71% might not be sufficient for introduction into cancer diagnostics. However, of the initially misclassified samples according to the SVM algorithms choice with strongest classification strength the second ranked classification was correct in 60% of the cases. This yields an overall accuracy using the combined first and second ranked classifications of 89%. The low validation score of HBC samples can be attributed to the relative low number of samples and possibly to the heterogenic nature of this group of cancers (hepatocellular cancers and cholangiocarcinomas).
large Image

Tumor-Educated Platelet mRNA Profiles for Multiclass Cancer Diagnostics

(A) Heatmaps of unsupervised clustering of platelet mRNA profiles of healthy donors (HD; n = 55) (red) and patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n = 60), colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 41), glioblastoma (GBM; n = 39), pancreatic cancer (PAAD, n = 35), breast cancer (BrCa; n = 39; female HD; n = 29), and hepatobiliary cancer (HBC; n = 14).

(B) ROC-curve of SVM diagnostics of healthy donors and individual tumor classes in both training (left) and validation (right) cohort. Random classifiers, indicating the classification accuracies obtained by chance, are shown in gray.

(C) Confusion matrix of multiclass SVM/LOOCV diagnostics of patients with CRC, PAAD, and HBC. Indicated are detection rates as compared to the actual classes in percentages.

(D) Confusion matrix of multiclass SVM/LOOCV diagnostics of the training cohort consisting of healthy donors (healthy) and patients with GBM, NSCLC, PAAD, CRC, BrCa, and HBC. Indicated are detection rates as compared to the actual classes in percentages.

(E) Confusion matrix of multiclass SVM algorithm in a validation cohort (n = 108). Indicated are sample numbers and detection rates in percentages. Genes, number of mRNAs included in training of the SVM algorithm.

See also Figure S2 and Tables S4, S5, and S6.

Companion Diagnostics Tumor Tissue Biomarkers Are Reflected by Surrogate TEP mRNA Onco-signatures

Blood provides a promising biosource for the detection of companion diagnostics biomarkers for therapy selection (Bettegowda et al., 2014, Crowley et al., 2013,Papadopoulos et al., 2006). We selected platelet samples of patients with distinct therapy-guiding markers confirmed in matching tumor tissue. Although the platelet mRNA profiles contained undetectable or low levels of these mutant biomarkers, the TEP mRNA profiles did allow to distinguish patients with KRASmutant tumors from KRAS wild-type tumors in PAAD, CRC, NSCLC, and HBC patients, and EGFR mutant tumors in NSCLC patients, using algorithms specifically trained on biomarker-specific input gene lists (all p < 0.01 versus random classifiers, Figures 3A–3E ; Table S4). Even though the number of samples analyzed is relatively low and the risk of algorithm overfitting needs to be taken into account, the TEP profiles distinguished patients with HER2-amplified, PIK3CA mutant or triple-negative BrCa, and NSCLC patients with MET overexpression (all p < 0.01 versus random classifiers, Figures 3F–3I).

 We subsequently compared the diagnostic accuracy of the TEP mRNA classification method with a targeted KRAS (exon 12 and 13) and EGFR (exon 20 and 21) amplicon deep sequencing strategy (∼5,000× coverage) on the Illumina Miseq platform using prospectively collected blood samples of patients with localized or metastasized cancer. This method did allow for the detection of individual mutant KRAS and EGFR sequences in both plasma DNA and platelet RNA (Table S7), indicating sequestration and potential education capacity of mutant, tumor-derived RNA biomarkers in TEPs. Mutant KRAS was detected in 62% and 39%, respectively, of plasma DNA (n = 103, kappa statistics = 0.370, p < 0.05) and platelet RNA (n = 144, kappa statistics = 0.213, p < 0.05) of patients with a KRAS mutation in primary tumor tissue. The sensitivity of the plasma DNA tests was relatively poor as reported by others (Bettegowda et al., 2014, Thierry et al., 2014), which may partly be attributed to the loss of plasma DNA quality due to relatively long blood sample storage (EDTA blood samples were stored up to 48 hr at room temperature before plasma isolation). To discriminate KRAS mutant from wild-type tumors in blood, the TEP mRNA profiles provided superior concordance with tissue molecular status (kappa statistics = 0.795–0.895, p < 0.05) compared to KRAS amplicon sequencing analysis of both plasma DNA and platelet RNA (Table S7). Thus, TEP mRNA profiles can harness potential blood-based surrogate onco-signatures for tumor tissue biomarkers that enable cancer patient stratification and therapy selection.
large Image

Tumor-Educated Platelet mRNA Profiles for Molecular Pathway Diagnostics

Cross tables of SVM/LOOCV diagnostics with the molecular markers KRAS in (A) CRC, (B) PAAD, and (C) NSCLC patients, (D) KRAS in the combined cohort of patients with either CRC, PAAD, NSCLC, or HBC, (E) EGFR and (F) MET in NSCLC patients, (G) PIK3CA mutations, (H) HER2-amplification, and (I) triple negative status in BrCa patients. Genes, number of mRNAs included in training of the SVM algorithm. See alsoTables S4 and S7.

TEP-Profiles Provide an All-in-One Biosource for Blood-Based Liquid Biopsies in Patients with Cancer

Unequivocal discrimination of primary versus metastatic nature of a tumor may be difficult and hamper adequate therapy selection. Since the TEP profiles closely resemble the different tumor types as determined by their organ of origin—regardless of systemic dissemination—this potentially allows for organ-specific cancer diagnostics. Hence we selected all healthy donors and all patients with primary or metastatic tumor burden in the lung (n = 154), brain (n = 114), or liver (n = 127). We performed “organ exams” and instructed the SVM/LOOCV algorithm to determine for lung, brain, and liver the presence or absence of cancer (96%, 91%, and 96% accuracy, respectively), with cancer subclassified as primary or metastatic tumor (84%, 93%, and 90% accuracy, respectively) and in case of metastases to identify the potential organ of origin (64%, 70%, and 64% accuracy, respectively). The platelet mRNA profiles enabled assignment of the cancer to the different organs with high accuracy (Figure 4). In addition, using the same TEP mRNA profiles we were able to again indicate the biomarker status of the tumor tissues (90%, 82%, and 93% accuracy, respectively) (Figure 4).

large Image

Organ-Focused TEP-Based Cancer Diagnostics

SVM/LOOCV diagnostics of healthy donors (n = 55) and patients with primary or metastatic tumor burden in the lung (n = 99; totaling 154 tests), brain (n = 62; totaling 114 tests), or liver (n = 72; totaling 127 tests), to determine the presence or absence of cancer, with cancer subclassified as primary or metastatic tumor, in case of metastases the identified organ of origin, and the correctly identified molecular markers. Of note, at the exam level of mutational subtypes some samples were included in multiple classifiers (i.e., KRAS, EGFR, PIK3CA,HER2-amplification, MET-overexpression, or triple negative status), explaining the higher number in mutational tests than the total number of included samples. TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative. Indicated are sample numbers and detection rates in percentages.

Discussion

The use of blood-based liquid biopsies to detect, diagnose, and monitor cancer may enable earlier diagnosis of cancer, lower costs by tailoring molecular targeted treatments, improve convenience for cancer patients, and ultimately supplements clinical oncological decision-making. Current blood-based biosources under evaluation demonstrate suboptimal sensitivity for cancer diagnostics, in particular in patients with localized disease. So far, none of the current blood-based biosources, including plasma DNA, exosomes, and CTCs, have been employed for multiclass cancer diagnostics (Alix-Panabières and Pantel, 2014, Bettegowda et al., 2014, Skog et al., 2008), hampering its implementation for early cancer detection. Here, we report that molecular interrogation of blood platelet mRNA can offer valuable diagnostics information for all cancer patients analyzed—spanning six different tumor types. Our results suggest that platelets may be employable as an all-in-one biosource to broadly scan for molecular traces of cancer in general and provide a strong indication on tumor type and molecular subclass. This includes patients with localized disease possibly allowing for targeted diagnostic confirmation using routine clinical diagnostics for each particular tumor type.

Since the discovery of circulating tumor material in blood of patients with cancer (Leon et al., 1977) and the recognition of the clinical utility of blood-based liquid biopsies, a wealth of studies has assessed the use of blood for cancer diagnostics, prognostication and treatment monitoring (Alix-Panabières et al., 2012, Bidard et al., 2014, Crowley et al., 2013, Haber and Velculescu, 2014). By development of highly sensitive targeted detection methods, such as targeted deep sequencing (Newman et al., 2014), droplet digital PCR (Bettegowda et al., 2014), and allele-specific PCR (Maheswaran et al., 2008, Thierry et al., 2014), the utility and applicability of liquid biopsies for clinical implementation has accelerated. These advances previously allowed for a pan-cancer comparison of various biosources and revealed that in >75% of cancers, including advanced stage pancreas, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer, cell-free DNA is detectable although detection rates are dependent on the grade of the tumor and depth of analysis (Bettegowda et al., 2014). Here, we show that the platelet RNA profiles are affected in nearly all cancer patients, regardless of the type of tumor, although the abundance of tumor-associated RNAs seems variable among cancer patients. In addition, surrogate RNA onco-signatures of tissue biomarkers, also in 88% of localized KRAS mutant cancer patients as measured by the tumor-specific and pan-cancer SVM/LOOCV procedures, are readily available from a minute amount (100–500 pg) of platelet RNA. As whole blood can be stored up to 48 hr on room temperature prior to isolation of the platelet pellet, while maintaining high-quality RNA and the dominant cancer RNA signatures, TEPs can be more readily implemented in daily clinical laboratory practice and could potentially be shipped prior to further blood sample processing.

Blood platelets are widely involved in tumor growth and cancer progression (Gay and Felding-Habermann, 2011). Platelets sequester solubilized tumor-associated proteins (Klement et al., 2009) and spliced and unspliced mRNAs (Calverley et al., 2010, Nilsson et al., 2011), whereas platelets do also directly interact with tumor cells (Labelle et al., 2011), neutrophils (Sreeramkumar et al., 2014), circulating NK-cells (Palumbo et al., 2005, Placke et al., 2012), and circulating tumor cells (Ting et al., 2014, Yu et al., 2013). Interestingly, in vivo experiments have revealed breast cancer-mediated systemic instigation by supplying circulating platelets with pro-inflammatory and pro-angiogenic proteins, supporting outgrowth of dormant metastatic foci (Kuznetsov et al., 2012). Using a gene ontology methodology, CAGE, we correlated TEP-cancer signatures with publicly available curated datasets. Indeed, we identified widespread correlations with cancer tissues, hypoxia, platelet-signatures, and cytoskeleton, possibly reflecting the “alert” and pro-tumorigenic state of TEPs. We observed strong negative correlations with RNAs implicated in RNA translation, T cell immunity, and interleukin-signaling, implying diminished needs of TEPs for RNAs involved in these biological processes or orchestrated translation of these RNAs to proteins (Denis et al., 2005). We observed that the tumor-specific educational programs in TEPs are predominantly influenced by tumor type and, to a lesser extent, by tumor progression and metastases. Although we were not able to measure significant differences between non-metastasized and metastasized tumors, we do not exclude that the use of larger sample sets could allow for the generation of SVM algorithms that do have the power to discriminate between certain stages of cancer, including those with in situ carcinomas and even pre-malignant lesions. In addition, different molecular tumor subtypes (e.g., HER2-amplified versus wild-type BrCa) result in different effects on the platelet profiles, possibly caused by different “educational” stimuli generated by the different molecular tumor subtypes (Koboldt et al., 2012). Altogether, the RNA content of platelets in patients with cancer is dependent on the transcriptional state of the bone-marrow megakaryocyte (Calverley et al., 2010, McAllister and Weinberg, 2014), complemented by sequestration of spliced RNA (Nilsson et al., 2011), release of RNA (Clancy and Freedman, 2014, Kirschbaum et al., 2015, Rak and Guha, 2012, Risitano et al., 2012), and possibly queue-specific pre-mRNA splicing during platelet circulation. Partial or complete normalization of the platelet profiles following successful treatment of the tumor would enable TEP-based disease recurrence monitoring, requiring the analysis of follow-up platelet samples. Future studies will be required to address the tumor-specific “educated” profiles on both an (small non-coding) RNA (Laffont et al., 2013, Landry et al., 2009, Leidinger et al., 2014, Lu et al., 2005) and protein (Burkhart et al., 2014,Geiger et al., 2013, Klement et al., 2009) level and determine the ability of gene ontology, blood-based cancer classification.

In conclusion, we provide robust evidence for the clinical relevance of blood platelets for liquid biopsy-based molecular diagnostics in patients with several types of cancer. Further validation is warranted to determine the potential of surrogate TEP profiles for blood-based companion diagnostics, therapy selection, longitudinal monitoring, and disease recurrence monitoring. In addition, we expect the self-learning algorithms to further improve by including significantly more samples. For this approach, isolation of the platelet fraction from whole blood should be performed within 48 hr after blood withdrawal, the platelet fraction can subsequently be frozen for cancer diagnosis. Also, future studies should address causes and anticipated risks of outlier samples identified in this study, such as healthy donors classified as cancer patients. Systemic factors such as chronic or transient inflammatory diseases, or cardiovascular events and other non-cancerous diseases may also influence the platelet mRNA profile and require evaluation in follow-up studies, possibly also including individuals predisposed for cancer.

References   

Authors  Title
Source

Akbani, R., Ng, P.K.S., Werner, H.M.J., Shahmoradgoli, M., Zhang, F., Ju, Z., Liu, W., Yang, J.-Y., Yoshihara, K., Li, J. et al. A pan-cancer proteomic perspective on The Cancer Genome Atlas.

Nat. Commun. 2014; 5: 3887

Alix-Panabières, C. and Pantel, K. Challenges in circulating tumour cell research.

Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2014; 14:623–631

Alix-Panabières, C., Schwarzenbach, H., and Pantel, K. Circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA.

Annu. Rev. Med. 2012; 63:199–215

Bettegowda, C., Sausen, M., Leary, R.J., Kinde, I., Wang, Y., Agrawal, N., Bartlett, B.R., Wang, H., Luber, B., Alani, R.M. et al. Detection of circulating tumor DNA in early- and late-stage human malignancies.

Sci. Transl. Med. 2014; 6:224ra24

Bidard, F.-C., Peeters, D.J., Fehm, T., Nolé, F., Gisbert-Criado, R., Mavroudis, D., Grisanti, S., Generali, D., Garcia-Saenz, J.A., Stebbing, J. et al. Clinical validity of circulating tumour cells in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data.

Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15: 406–414

Bray, P.F., McKenzie, S.E., Edelstein, L.C., Nagalla, S., Delgrosso, K., Ertel, A., Kupper, J., Jing, Y., Londin, E., Loher, P. et al. The complex transcriptional landscape of the anucleate human platelet.

BMC Genomics. 2013; 14: 1

Burkhart, J.M., Gambaryan, S., Watson, S.P., Jurk, K., Walter, U., Sickmann, A., Heemskerk, J.W.M., and Zahedi, R.P.  What can proteomics tell us about platelets?.

Circ. Res. 2014; 114: 1204–1219

Calverley, D.C., Phang, T.L., Choudhury, Q.G., Gao, B., Oton, A.B., Weyant, M.J., and Geraci, M.W. Significant downregulation of platelet gene expression in metastatic lung cancer.

Clin. Transl. Sci. 2010; 3:227–232

Chan, K.C.A., Jiang, P., Chan, C.W.M., Sun, K., Wong, J., Hui, E.P., Chan, S.L., Chan, W.C., Hui, D.S.C., Ng, S.S.M. et al. Noninvasive detection of cancer-associated genome-wide hypomethylation and copy number aberrations by plasma DNA bisulfite sequencing.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.2013; 110: 18761–18768

Abstract Image
Chi-Ping Day, Glenn Merlino, Terry Van Dyke
Cell, Vol. 163, Issue 1, p39–53
Published in issue: September 24, 2015
Abstract Image
Katherine A. Hoadley, Christina Yau, Denise M. Wolf, Andrew D. Cherniack, David Tamborero, Sam Ng, Max D.M. Leiserson, Beifang Niu, Michael D. McLellan, Vladislav Uzunangelov, Jiashan Zhang, Cyriac Kandoth, Rehan Akbani, Hui Shen, Larsson Omberg, Andy Chu, Adam A. Margolin, Laura J. van’t Veer, Nuria Lopez-Bigas, Peter W. Laird, Benjamin J. Raphael, Li Ding, A. Gordon Robertson, Lauren A. Byers, Gordon B. Mills, John N. Weinstein, Carter Van Waes, Zhong Chen, Eric A. Collisson, The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Christopher C. Benz, Charles M. Perou, Joshua M. Stuart
Cell, Vol. 158, Issue 4, p929–944
Published online: August 7, 2014

Open Archive

Abstract Image
Pau Creixell, Erwin M. Schoof, Craig D. Simpson, James Longden, Chad J. Miller, Hua Jane Lou, Lara Perryman, Thomas R. Cox, Nevena Zivanovic, Antonio Palmeri, Agata Wesolowska-Andersen, Manuela Helmer-Citterich, Jesper Ferkinghoff-Borg, Hiroaki Itamochi, Bernd Bodenmiller, Janine T. Erler, Benjamin E. Turk, Rune Linding
Cell, Vol. 163, Issue 1, p202–217
Published online: September 17, 2015
Abstract Image
Cell, Vol. 155, Issue 1, p9–10
Published in issue: September 26, 2013

Open Archive

Abstract Image
Corina E. Antal, Andrew M. Hudson, Emily Kang, Ciro Zanca, Christopher Wirth, Natalie L. Stephenson, Eleanor W. Trotter, Lisa L. Gallegos, Crispin J. Miller, Frank B. Furnari, Tony Hunter, John Brognard, Alexandra C. Newton
Cell, Vol. 160, Issue 3, p489–502
Published online: January 22, 2015
Abstract Image
Cell, Vol. 160, Issues 1-2, p7
Published in issue: January 15, 2015
Abstract Image
Amelia J. Johnston, Kate T. Murphy, Laura Jenkinson, David Laine, Kerstin Emmrich, Pierre Faou, Ross Weston, Krishnath M. Jayatilleke, Jessie Schloegel, Gert Talbo, Joanne L. Casey, Vita Levina, W. Wei-Lynn Wong, Helen Dillon, Tushar Sahay, Joan Hoogenraad, Holly Anderton, Cathrine Hall, Pascal Schneider, Maria Tanzer, Michael Foley, Andrew M. Scott, Paul Gregorevic, Spring Yingchun Liu, Linda C. Burkly, Gordon S. Lynch, John Silke, Nicholas J. Hoogenraad
Cell, Vol. 162, Issue 6, p1365–1378
Published in issue: September 10, 2015
Abstract Image
Levi A. Garraway, Eric S. Lander
Cell, Vol. 153, Issue 1, p17–37
Published in issue: March 28, 2013

Open Archive

Abstract Image
Hector L. Franco, W. Lee Kraus
Cell, Vol. 163, Issue 1, p28–30
Published in issue: September 24, 2015

Read Full Post »

The Path to Personalized Medicine

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

3.10 The Path to Personalized Medicine

Margaret A. Hamburg, and Francis S. Collins
N Engl J Med Jul 22, 2010; 363(4): 301-304
http://stanford.edu/class/gene210/files/readings/hamburg_collins.pdf

Researchers have discovered hundreds of genes that harbor variations contributing to human illness, identified genetic variability in patients’ responses to dozens of treatments, and begun to target the molecular causes of some diseases. In addition, scientists are developing and using diagnostic tests based on genetics or other molecular mechanisms to better predict patients’ responses to targeted therapy.

The challenge is to deliver the benefits of this work to patients. As the leaders of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we have a shared vision of personalized medicine and the scientific and regulatory structure needed to support its growth. Together, we have been focusing on the best ways to develop new therapies and optimize prescribing by steering patients to the right drug at the right dose at the right time.

We recognize that myriad obstacles must be overcome to achieve these goals. These include scientific challenges, such as determining which genetic markers have the most clinical significance, limiting the off-target effects of gene-based therapies, and conducting clinical studies to identify genetic variants that are correlated with a drug response. There are also policy challenges, such as finding a level of regulation for genetic tests that both protects patients and encourages innovation. To make progress, the NIH and the FDA will invest in advancing translational and regulatory science, better define regulatory pathways for coordinated approval of codeveloped diagnostics and therapeutics, develop risk-based approaches for appropriate review of diagnostics to more accurately assess their validity and clinical utility, and make information about tests readily available.

Moving from concept to clinical use requires basic, translational, and regulatory science. On the basic-science front, studies are identifying many genetic variations underlying the risks of both rare and common diseases. These newly discovered genes, proteins, and pathways can represent powerful new drug targets, but currently there is insufficient evidence of a downstream market to entice the private sector to explore most of them. To fill that void, the NIH and the FDA will develop a more integrated pathway that connects all the steps between the identification of a potential therapeutic target by academic researchers and the approval of a therapy for clinical use. This pathway will include NIH-supported centers where researchers can screen thousands of chemicals to find potential drug candidates, as well as public– private partnerships to help move candidate compounds into commercial development.

The NIH will implement this strategy through such efforts as the Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases (TRND) program. With an open environment, permitting the involvement of all the world’s top experts on a given disease, the TRND program will enable certain promising compounds to be taken through the preclinical development phase — a time-consuming, high-risk phase that pharmaceutical firms call “the valley of death.” Besides accelerating the development of drugs to treat rare and neglected diseases, the TRND program may also help to identify molecularly distinct subtypes of some common diseases, which may lead to new therapeutic possibilities, either through the development of targeted drugs or the salvaging of abandoned or failed drugs by identifying subgroups of patients likely to benefit from them.

Another important step will be expanding efforts to develop tissue banks containing specimens along with information linking them to clinical outcomes. Such a resource will allow for a much broader assessment of the clinical importance of genetic variation across a range of conditions. For example, the NIH is now supporting genome analysis in participants in the Framingham Heart Study, obtaining biologic specimens from babies enrolled in the National Children’s Study, and performing detailed genetic analysis of 20 types of tumors to improve our understanding of their molecular basis.

As for translational science, the NIH is harnessing the talents and strengths of its Clinical and Translational Sciences Award program, which currently funds 46 centers and has awardees in 26 states, and its Mark O. Hatfield Clinical Research Center (the country’s largest research hospital, in Bethesda, MD) to translate basic research findings into clinical applications. Just as the NIH served as an initial home for human gene therapy, the Hatfield Center can provide specialized diagnostic services for rare and neglected diseases, offer a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility for novel therapies, and pioneer clinical trials of other innovative biologic therapies, such as those using human embryonic stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells.

Today, about 10% of labels for FDA-approved drugs contain pharmacogenomic information — a substantial increase since the 1990s but hardly the limit of the possibilities for this aspect of personalized medicine.1 There has been an explosion in the number of validated markers but relatively little independent analysis of the validity of the tests used to identify them in biologic specimens.

The success of personalized medicine depends on having accurate diagnostic tests that identify patients who can benefit from targeted therapies. For example, clinicians now commonly use diagnostics to determine which breast tumors overexpress the human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2), which is associated with a worse prognosis but also predicts a better response to the medication trastuzumab. A test for HER2 was approved along with the drug (as a “companion diagnostic”) so that clinicians can better target patients’ treatment (see table).

Increasingly, however, the use of therapeutic innovations for a specific patient is contingent on or guided by the results from a diagnostic test that has not been independently reviewed for accuracy and reliability by the FDA. For example, in 2006, the FDA granted approval to rituximab (Rituxan) for use as part of firstline treatment in patients with certain cancers. Since then, a laboratory has marketed a test with the claim that it can identify the approximately 20% of patients who are more likely to have a response to the drug. The FDA has not reviewed the scientific justification for this claim, but health care providers may use the test results to guide therapy. This undermines the approval process that has been established to protect patients, fails to ensure that physicians have accurate information on which to make treatment decisions, and decreases the chances that physicians will adopt a new therapeutic–diagnostic approach. The FDA is coordinating and clarifying the process that manufacturers must follow regarding their claims, including defining the times when a companion diagnostic must be approved or cleared before or concurrently with approval of the therapy. The agency will ensure that claims that a test will improve the care of patients are based on solid evidence, and developers will get straightforward, consistent advice about the standards for review and the best way to demonstrate that the combination works as intended.

In February, the NIH and the FDA announced a new collaboration on regulatory and translational science to accelerate the translation of research into medical products and therapies; this effort includes a joint funding opportunity for regulatory science. Working with academic experts, companies, doctors, patients, and the public, we intend to help make personalized medicine a reality. A recent example of this collaboration is an effort to identify new investigational agents to which certain tumors, identified by their genetic signatures, are responsive. Real progress will come when clinically beneficial new products and approaches are incorporated into clinical practice. As the field advances, we expect to see more efficient clinical trials based on a more thorough understanding of the genetic basis of disease. We also anticipate that some previously failed medications will be recognized as safe and effective and will be approved for subgroups of patients with specific genetic markers.

Read Full Post »

Insights in Biological and Synthetic Medicinal Chemistry

Larry H. Bernstein, M.D., FCAP, Curator

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence

Series E. 2;  10

Selected Articles Linking the Biological and Synthetic Worlds

The worlds of biological and synthetic chemistry both offer incredible diversity. Biology provides complex architectures including proteins, nucleic acids, and polysaccharides. Synthetic chemistry, on the other hand, provides a tool for atom-by-atom control over molecular structure that can be used to obtain molecules and materials inaccessible through biology.

In this ACS Select Virtual Issue, we highlight some of the recent advances in bioconjugation chemistry. These publications describe new strategies for functionalization of biomacromolecules, as well as the use of synthetic molecules as building blocks for assembly using biological machinery. The resultant conjugate systems have new and exciting properties, as demonstrated in new therapeutic and imaging applications.

– Vincent Rotello, Editor-in-Chief, Bioconjugate Chemistry
– C. Dale Poulter, Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Organic Chemistry
– Amos Smith, III, Editor-in-Chief, Organic Letters

10.1  Bioconjugate Chemistry

10.1.1 Production of Site-Specific Antibody-Drug Conjugates Using Optimized Non-Natural Amino Acids in a Cell-Free Expression System
Zimmerman, E. S.; Heibeck, T. H.; Gill, A.; Li, X. F.; Murray, C. J.; Madlansacay, M. R.; Tran, C.; Uter, N. T.; Yin, G.; Rivers, P. J.; Yam, A. Y.; Wang, W. D.; Steiner, A. R.; Bajad, S. U.; Penta, K.; Yang, W. J.; Hallam, T. J.; Thanos, C. D.; Sato, A. K.
Bioconjugate Chem., 2014, 25 (2), pp 351-361
DOI: 10.1021/bc400490z

10.1.2 General Chemoselective and Redox-Responsive Ligation and Release Strategy
Park, S.; Westcott, N. P.; Luo, W.; Dutta, D.; Yousaf, M. N.
Bioconjugate Chem., 2014, 25 (3), pp 543-551
DOI: 10.1021/bc400565y

10.1.3 Chemoenzymatic Fc Glycosylation via Engineered Aldehyde Tags
Smith, E. L.; Giddens, J. P.; Iavarone, A. T.; Godula, K.; Wang, L. X.; Bertozzi, C. R.
Bioconjugate Chem., 2014, 25 (4), pp 788-795
DOI: 10.1021/bc500061s

10.1.4 Triazine-Based Tool Box for Developing Peptidic PET Imaging Probes: Syntheses, Microfluidic Radio labeling, and Structure-Activity Evaluation
Li, H. R.; Zhou, H. Y.; Krieger, S.; Parry, J. J.; Whittenberg, J. J.; Desai, A. V.; Rogers, B. E.; Kenis, P. J. A.; Reichert, D. E.
Bioconjugate Chem., 2014, 25 (4), pp 761-772
DOI: 10.1021/bc500034n

10.1.5 Developments in the Field of Bioorthogonal Bond Forming Reactions-Past and Present Trends
King, M.; Wagner, A.
Bioconjugate Chem., 2014, 25 (5), pp 825-839
DOI: 10.1021/bc500028d

10.1.6 Diels-Alder Cycloadditions on Synthetic RNA in Mammalian Cells
Pyka, A. M.; Domnick, C.; Braun, F.; Kath-Schorr, S.
Bioconjugate Chem., 2014, 25 (8), pp 1438-1443
DOI: 10.1021/bc500302y

10.1.7 High-Density Functionalization and Cross-Linking of DNA: “Click” and “Bis-Click” Cycloadditions Performed on Alkynylated Oligonucleotides with Fluorogenic Anthracene Azides
Pujari, S. S.; Ingale, S. A.; Seela, F.
Bioconjugate Chem., 2014, 25 (10), pp 1855-1870
DOI: 10.1021/bc5003532

10.1.8 Surface Functionalization of Exosomes Using Click Chemistry
Smyth, T.; Petrova, K.; Payton, N. M.; Persaud, I.; Redzic, J. S.; Gruner, M. W.; Smith-Jones, P.; Anchordoquy, T. J.
Bioconjugate Chem., 2014, 25 (10), pp 1777-1784
DOI: 10.1021/bc500291r

10.1.9 Site-Specific Antibody-Drug Conjugates: The Nexus of Biciorthogonal Chemistry, Protein Engineering, and Drug Development.
Agarwal, P.; Bertozzi, C. R.
Bioconjugate Chem., 2015, 26 (2), pp 176-192
DOI: 10.1021/bc5004982

10.1.10 Strain-Promoted Oxidation-Controlled Cyclooctyne-1,2-Quinone Cycloaddition (SPOCQ) for Fast and Activatable Protein Conjugation
Borrmann, A.; Fatunsin, O.; Dommerholt, J.; Jonker, A. M.; Lowik, D.; van Hest, J. C. M.; van Delft, F. L.
Bioconjugate Chem., 2015, 26 (2), pp 257-261
DOI: 10.1021/bc500534d

10.2 The Journal of Organic Chemistry

10.2.1 Sequential “Click” – “Photo-Click” Cross-Linker for Catalyst-Free Ligation of Azide-Tagged Substrates
Arumugam, S.; Popik, V. V.
J. Org. Chem., 2014, 79 (6), pp 2702-2708
DOI: 10.1021/jo500143v

10.2.3 Diazirine-Containing RNA Photo-Cross-Linking Probes for Capturing microRNA Targets
Nakamoto, K.; Ueno, Y.
J. Org. Chem., 2014, 79 (6), pp 2463-2472
DOI: 10.1021/jo402738t

10.2.4 Interstrand Cross-Link and Bioconjugate Formation in RNA from a Modified Nucleotide
Sloane, J. L.; Greenberg, M. M.
J. Org. Chem., 2014, 79 (20), pp 9792-9798
DOI: 10.1021/jo501982r

10.2.5 Synthesis of Base-Modified 2 ‘-Deoxyribonucleoside Triphosphates and Their Use in Enzymatic Synthesis of Modified DNA for Applications in Bioanalysis and Chemical Biology
Hocek, M.
J. Org. Chem., 2014, 79 (21), pp 9914-9921
DOI: 10.1021/jo5020799

10.2.6 Site-specific PEGylation of Proteins: Recent Developments
Nischan, N.; Hackenberger, C. P. R.
J. Org. Chem., 2014, 79 (22), pp 10727-10733
DOI: 10.1021/jo502136n

10.3 Organic Letters

10.3.1 One-Pot Peptide Ligation-Desulfurization at Glutamate
Cergol, K. M.; Thompson, R. E.; Malins, L. R.; Turner, P.; Payne, R. J.
Org. Lett., 2014, 16 (1), pp 290-293
DOI: 10.1021/ol403288n

10.3.2 Semisynthesis of Peptoid-Protein Hybrids by Chemical Ligation at Serine
Levine, P. M.; Craven, T. W.; Bonneau, R.; Kirshenbaum, K
Org. Lett., 2014, 16 (2), pp 512-515
DOI: 10.1021/ol4033978

10.3.3 A Photoinduced, Benzyne Click Reaction
Gann, A. W.; Amoroso, J. W.; Einck, V. J.; Rice, W. P.; Chambers, J. J.; Schnarr, N. A.
Org. Lett., 2014, 16 (7), pp 2003-2005
DOI: 10.1021/ol500389t

10.3.4 Amine-Selective Bioconjugation Using Arene Diazonium Salts
Diethelm, S.; Schafroth, M. A.; Carreira, E. M.
Org. Lett., 2014, 16 (15), pp 3908-3911
DOI: 10.1021/ol5016509

10.3 5 Efficient and Facile Synthesis of Acrylamide Libraries for Protein-Guided Tethering
Allen, C. E.; Curran, P. R.; Brearley, A. S.; Boissel, V.; Sviridenko, L.; Press, N. J.; Stonehouse, J. P.; Armstrong, A.
Org. Lett., 2015, 17 (3), pp 458-460
DOI: 10.1021/ol503486t

10.4 Synthesis, Design and Molecular Function

This Special Issue on “Synthesis, Design and Molecular Function”, guest-edited by Paul Wender, is intended to explore the many exciting new advances and challenges associated with designing and making molecules in the 21st century. It features contributions from thought leaders in the field directed at new reactions, reagents and catalysts, process technologies and screening strategies.

See guest editorial by Paul Wender

10.4.1 Art, Architecture, and the Molecular Frontier
Paul A. Wender (Guest Editor)
DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00332

10.4.2 From Synthesis to Function via Iterative Assembly of N-Methyliminodiacetic Acid Boronate Building Blocks
Junqi Li, Anthony S. Grillo, and Martin D. Burke *
DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00128

10.4.3 Trimethylenemethane Diyl Mediated Tandem Cycloaddition Reactions: Mechanism Based Design of Synthetic Strategies
Hee-Yoon Lee *
DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00178

10.4.4 Intermolecular Reaction Screening as a Tool for Reaction Evaluation
Karl D. Collins* and Frank Glorius*
DOI: 10.1021/ar500434f

10.4.5 Development of Globo-H Cancer Vaccine
Samuel J. Danishefsky*, Youe-Kong Shue, Michael N. Chang, and Chi-Huey Wong*
DOI: 10.1021/ar5004187

10.4.6 Total Synthesis of Vinblastine, Related Natural Products, and Key Analogues and Development of Inspired Methodology Suitable for the Systematic Study of Their Structure–Function Properties
Justin E. Sears and Dale L. Boger*
DOI: 10.1021/ar500400w

10.4.7 Reaction Design, Discovery, and Development as a Foundation to Function-Oriented Synthesis
Glenn C. Micalizio* and Sarah B. Hale
DOI: 10.1021/ar500408e

10.4.8 Copy, Edit, and Paste: Natural Product Approaches to Biomaterials and Neuroengineering
Karl Gademann*
DOI: 10.1021/ar500435b

10.4.9 Catalytic Enantioselective Construction of Quaternary Stereocenters: Assembly of Key Building Blocks for the Synthesis of Biologically Active Molecules
Yiyang Liu, Seo-Jung Han, Wen-Bo Liu, and Brian M. Stoltz*
DOI: 10.1021/ar5004658

10.4.10 Focused Library with a Core Structure Extracted from Natural Products and Modified: Application to Phosphatase Inhibitors and Several Biochemical Findings
Go Hirai* and Mikiko Sodeoka*
DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00048

10.5 Ionization Methods in Mass Spectrometry

Mass spectrometry has undoubtedly boomed over the last two decades and has become a major analytical tool in many disciplines. The technique relies on the separation of ions of different m/z, and its success hinges on efficient ionization methods that furthermore should be tailored to the task at hand. Depending on the application, ionization should be soft, hard, selective, as efficient as possible, etc. This virtual issue pulls together publications from Analytical Chemistry that showcase the exemplary developments in ionization techniques.

10.5.1 From the editorial by Renato Zenobi
DOI 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b01062

10.5.2 Nanophotonic Ionization for Ultratrace and Single-Cell Analysis by Mass Spectrometry
Bennett N. Walker, Jessica A. Stolee, and Akos Vertes
DOI: 10.1021/ac301238k

10.5.3 Unraveling the Mechanism of Electrospray Ionization
Lars Konermann, Elias Ahadi, Antony D. Rodriguez, and Siavash Vahidi
DOI: 10.1021/ac302789c

10.5.4 Ambient Surface Mass Spectrometry Using Plasma-Assisted Desorption Ionization: Effects and Optimization of Analytical Parameters for Signal Intensities of Molecules and Polymers
T. L. Salter, I. S. Gilmore, A. Bowfield, O. T. Olabanji, and J. W. Bradley
DOI: 10.1021/ac302677m

10.5.5 Fast Surface Acoustic Wave-Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Mass Spectrometry of Cell Response from Islets of Langerhans
Loreta Bllaci, Sven Kjellström, Lena Eliasson, James R. Friend, Leslie Y. Yeo, and Staffan Nilsson
DOI: 10.1021/ac3019125

10.5.6 Electrospun Nanofibers as Substrates for Surface-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization and Matrix-Enhanced Surface-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Mass Spectrometry
Tian Lu and Susan V. Olesik
DOI: 10.1021/ac303292e

10.5.7 Capillary Photoionization: A High Sensitivity Ionization Method for Mass Spectrometry
Markus Haapala, Tina Suominen, and Risto Kostiainen
DOI: 10.1021/ac4002673

10.5.8 High-Speed Tandem Mass Spectrometric in Situ Imaging by Nanospray Desorption Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry
Ingela Lanekoff, Kristin Burnum-Johnson, Mathew Thomas, Joshua Short, James P. Carson, Jeeyeon Cha, Sudhansu K. Dey, Pengxiang Yang, Maria C. Prieto Conaway, and Julia Laskin
DOI: 10.1021/ac401760s

10.5.9 Atomic Force Microscope Controlled Topographical Imaging and Proximal Probe Thermal Desorption/Ionization Mass Spectrometry Imaging
Olga S. Ovchinnikova, Kevin Kjoller, Gregory B. Hurst, Dale A. Pelletier, and Gary J. Van Berkel
DOI: 10.1021/ac4026576

10.5.10 Droplet Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry for High Throughput Screening for Enzyme Inhibitors
Shuwen Sun and Robert T. Kennedy
DOI: 10.1021/ac502542z

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »